User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
See here for related revision history


Trolls at Collapse of the World Trade Center

They have been going strong for 3 hours straight from a number of IPs. I don't know if it's one person, but the fact the IPs go in sequence (until blocked) is telling. If you have any insight please share it at WP:RPP, or maybe at ANI (although I'm hoping someone will notice sooner). When I realized this was part of a concerted effort I quit treating it as a legitimate edit and began treating it as vandalism (thus not caring if I reverted more than 3 times....) Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just reported it to ANI. Hopefully that will get some speedy action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears it did. Thank you. I should have probably done that in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears this needs an SPI now. Note the geolocations of the IPs and the edit history of the autoconfirmed account used afterwards. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Account is already blocked praise the Lord. Seems it was a WP:DUCK.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for following up after I signed off for the evening: I blocked a talkpage IP that was clearly a proxy (from Peru this time). Although I would normally consider myself involved on this topic, the serial IPs and proxy-jumping remove any concerns I might have about taking admin action. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cored apple

I had the same concern as you did. - 2001:558:1400:10:6DE0:56C1:8482:D86A (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Akrafena

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Akrafena. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for General Hospital's 50th anniversary

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

IP range hardblocked again

This is Akuri, having to post via proxies again for now. I explained the reason here, and I thought I should let you know about that discussion. 54.225.81.59 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you told me I should wait longer and edit more articles before I try to request arbitration, but I don't think that's realistic anymore. Anything I edit until my IP range changes or the rangeblock expires will have to be with a proxy, and if if it's not a page that requires registration to edit I probably will edit without logging in, because half the time when I try to log in with a proxy the connection times out. I also think I shouldn't have to keep putting up with this dysfunction without trying to anything about it, especially now that it will affect me no matter what topic area I edit. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Brutsch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Brutsch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Azari

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Hello! I would like to say that you have a great user page and a great nick. I wish I had a colleague like you on WP-PL. Seleucidis (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Revenge_(TV_series)

I just wanted to let you know since you are the main person reverting the IP edits that keep mucking things up and going against the sourced classification, that I reverted back to your version, added a line from the infobox that got deleted, put in a request for temporary protection, and an HTML note on the page itself that the show's type shouldn't be changed without talk page discussion. Hopefully this will help, although I'm not holding out hope unless an admin grants the protection which will break their stride and maybe make them move on to doing something else. Until then, keep up the good work. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Race and genetics edits

Hi TDA, I've edited this article hopefully to both AndrewAz and your liking. Please don't editwar with him - a talk page discussion would have worked as well... thoriyan 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The article on race and genetics is not a platform for creationists to attack evolution with ridiculous unsourced commentary. No discussion is necessary to explain why referring to the scientific consensus view on human evolution as "speculation" in the editorial voice is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edits to Race and Genetics

Hello ! You will recall that I was persistent in making necessary editorial changes to the sub-section on Evolution in the article in question and you were reverting them ! I was unaware of the 3RR rule among other things otherwise I would have opened a conversation with you earlier. My point is simple. It is that Evolution simply does not qualify to be serious science at all. It is only a system of belief. One simple counter to the evolutionary idea is DNA repair that goes on in the cells to counter DNA damage that are a major cause of mutations. This is scientific fact.If evolution is true then there should be no mechanism like DNA repair that goes totally against the so called evolutionary principle. It is in the light of this and other examples that challenge evolution that we need to state plainly in academic articles like Race and Genetics that evolution is only the speculation of those who choose to believe in that idea - the evolutionary biologists. Otherwise serious researchers would be led up the 'wrong street' by such one sided pseudo-scientific arguments. Thanks for your attention. 11:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)AndrewAz (talk)

Andrew, evolution is not a "pseudo-science", in fact it has been accepted by the majority of the academic community. Your opinion is not the majority opinion and the way you've written them pushes one opinion over the majority, let alone remaining neutral. thoriyan 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You are free to believe whatever you like, but you can't force that in when there are no reliable sources backing up what you believe. It is especially inappropriate when the article has only a tangential connection to the subject of evolution.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thoriyan, Just because a majority believe in something or do something doesn't make what they believe in or engage in right. Again I would like to ask for a proof for evolution. Or let the evolutionists atleast come up with some credible counter arguments, if they can, for 'irreducible complexity' as seen in the eye, for example. Finally, if I am accused of pushing my argument over others, then the very one accusing me of doing so is guilty of pushing his argument over mine ! Neutrality is not achieved at all!! Good wishes ! AndrewAz (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
TDA, With reference to your statement that the article in question 'has only a tangential connection to the subject of evolution', may I draw your attention to the fact that the word 'evolved' has been used no less than three times in the first para of the sub-section on Evolution in the article, which I saw a few minutes ago. Tangential or deliberate and authoritative ? Thanks for your attention!AndrewAz (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is not about evolution. It has an "Evolution" sub-section to provide background for the actual topic of the article. Views on race and genetics, in one form or another, existed well before evolution became commonly-accepted science. Our purpose is to present what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a subject. Where there is some very small minority view that has gotten attention, it is only appropriate to take it into consideration when that view is the subject of discussion or considered of significant relevance by the same preponderance of reliable sources. Intelligent Design arguments are not in any way, shape, or form, an integral part of research into race and genetics. Evolution as you mean it isn't even really an integral part of the research. Research into hereditary causes for observed differences between racial groups is independent of research into the origin of man. They may connect, but it is a tangential connection. You don't have to accept that man and ape descended from a common ancestor to accept that different human population groups have developed different genetic traits over a period of thousands of years.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi TDA: Thanks for your elaborate reaction/response. I welcome your statements that: "Research into hereditary causes for observed differences between racial groups is independent of research into the origin of man" and "You don't have to accept that man and ape descended from a common ancestor to accept that different human population groups have developed different genetic traits over a period of thousands of years". These are neutral/neutralizing statements.I hope that contributors to the article in question have the grace to introduce atleast such statements into their article/s. By the way, 'irreducible complexity' and DNA repair should throw up good references/sources in a Google search. They are definitely not made up stories! Thanks for the attention, again! AndrewAz (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe such statements are necessary in the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mehcad Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Amanda Filipacci

Please feel free to use the discussion page to explain why you think the lead section should not represent the article per WP:LEAD. Please don't use the edit summary. According the lead guideline, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Is there a reason you removed the prominent controversy from the lead section? In the edit summary of your deletion, you said, "I don't think this merits mention in the lede at this point, certainly not to this extent". Then, at what point will it merit mention, and to what extent? Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say she is more notable for being an author and that sentence about Wikipedia took up over half the lede, which gives it undue weight. Should the article and, subsequently lede, be expanded more then I think it could be included in a way that avoids any undue weight issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
She is notable for being an author, and the lead made that very clear, noting that she wrote the op-ed piece, and the length of this content matched the current size of the body, so I disagree that there was any undue weight at all. However, I will be most happy to add it back after expanding the other sections. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you on Jimbo's talk page, and asked you a question. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to your question

You posted a question on my talkpage the other day and I'm sorry I only noticed it now. I've responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Email

I sent you email earlier today, and I'd like to make sure you saw it. 83.85.180.203 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CfD matter brought to ANI

That is all. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Michael Brutsch

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Brutsch , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Breadblade (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

that discussion

Is making my head hurt. I think I'm done. I think we should just continue diffusing men from Category:American novelists to the century cats and any other specific genre cats, that will make the whole thing more manageable - and then start diffusing the women in the same way in a months time. Tempers are too hot right now, and categorization/diffusion has become a scrutinized political act as opposed to a gnomish-tweak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that you should just avoid the Filipacchi article. Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. As a result no one will have much basis to object as it will be obvious that there is no "sexism" motivating the change and it will not create an appearance of unequal treatment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. We can call that "Filipacchi exceptionalism" - I guess nobody liked my other compromise, which was to ensure she was in a cat with several nobel and pulitzer prize winners. wouldn't it be funny if the whole cat was emptied and she remained there alone, her editors vigorously defending the castle and her role as an un-qualified american novelist? :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Johar

Why not?, its his official page and thus his LEGITIMATE name, not some random spelling.. the fact that his page is being vandalised is not a reason to not use it as a source for his ALTERNATE name. Its the name on top of that page we care, not what people have written at the bottom....As of now, that is the name most people know him by, as per spelling, not the one given to him by the media..--Stemoc (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It actually is a reason as it is not some stable official source or a secondary source. The vandalism is a legitimate concern as we shouldn't be using such a low-quality source when it is being bombarded with extremely degrading vandalism. Even if BLP didn't apply I would not support using an online source that is in such state. Seems there are plenty of secondary sources noting this alternate spelling. You should use one of those.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Editing restriction

Per consensus at AN your editing restriction around the ARS is hereby rescinded. Since the consensus to void the restriction was based on an undertaking not to go back to the behaviour that led to the original restriction, I have left it that any admin can reinstate the restriction should the behaviour reoccur but I'm confident that this won't happen. Best Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You have just replaced one restriction with another, basically probation. Only three out of 12 support votes conditioned their support on anything to that effect with more voting to remove the entire thing as a black mark so there was no consensus for your close so I would like you to amend your close to be a straight removal of the restriction with no conditions. Note that you would also be involved as one of the people who voted for the original restriction.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't actually recall that but I recognise that appearance is important. I have withdrawn my close and will recuse from further involvement. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've re-closed it as "lifted without restrictions" after reading the discussion. As I say, you're probably well-advised to avoid messing with the ARS, but that's purely an editorial aside, not a formal restriction or anything; there's no consensus for such a restriction and I'm not sure what the point of formalizing that as one would be anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal at Zeitgeist

Hi TDA, I have changed the title of the talk section in order to "turn down the heat". I do note that tagging something as unref with more than 40 refs does indeed seem like pure vandalism to me, it is certainly POINTy. I have not, as far as I can tell, made any personal remarks at all. If I have please tell me so that I may apologize directly and strike them. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When you characterize an edit as vandalism and it is not actually vandalism, that is a personal remark. I agree that it is inappropriate to claim the article needs more references, but that does not make it vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I still see it as flat out vandalism, but I respect your view. Should I also remove the term from my remarks on the talk page?Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not gonna tell you what to do, but if that is what you think would be most appropriate then go ahead.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably contrary to blp to say "These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect," and it doesn't seem necessary to your point. I'd appreciate it if you could remove it. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, it is not. I noted her own works on the subject of politics and anti-semitism in supporting my opinion and it is relevant to the point of whether she is reliable on the question of whether something can be described as anti-semitic. Nice try, Tom.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are stuck on that point, it is being pointed out that you may be in violation of Blp and repeating it aggressively sets a contentious tone on the talk page. At least dig up something to support your idea from the academic world, instead of slamming that female and her motivations so negatively. Then its not just your opinion. In effect you are interrupting the talk page aggressively with your opinion. Unless you are an academic writer or scholar of some type that has written on that issue, it is aggressive pov on a talk page, refusing to listen or compromise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Not stuck on anything. Please, stop heckling me on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I would hate to think if someone actually did heckle you, how you might act. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A map

I made you a new map. Take a look at the WT:RIGHT page. RGloucester (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

Copy and paste this onto your userpage:

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For the good sense you displayed on the adminboard. Asarelah (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the proxy IP

Did not check before responding Then I did and reported it, soon to be blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John C. Meringolo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John C. Meringolo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your AE appeal

Please see this update. The closing comment explains your further options. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (contact) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I am a little bit puzzled about the Wikipediocracy DYK. Though I have kept it on hold (specially because of the RFC, any other reviewer can continue it from there undoing the hold), but, I am following both the discussions. The main question of the RFC seems to be "Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?" etc etc— hey is not the task of a DYK reviewer to check if the article is fit to hit the main page? Or DYK reviewers do something else? The second question, is "that"/"those" hook okay? Or what should be the hook?— That was being discussed at the talk page. Let's see how the RFC goes! You can reply here, at my talk page, the DYK review page, RFC page— anywhere you want, I am following the mentioned 4 pages.--Tito Dutta (contact) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The person doing the RfC has issues with WO and is clearly just trying to torpedo the nom out of spite.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's see how it goes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed content

Since you are online now, could you please check if the collapsed content in the Suicide template is opening here Suicide_in_Kazakhstan? I am facing difficulties to understand if it is an issue of my computer/mouse or the template! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems it is a problem of my browser/settings/account. I have requested for help --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikipedia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Race and genetics". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whip It (film)

Thanks for reverting more properly than I had. That IP has been making a number of similar edits to movie articles, all involving the same subjects. Look at the edit history for Whip It and you'll see three similar IPs all making the same sort of edits. It may very well be a PR person, who knows, but no cites used whatsoever, nor edit summaries. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I reported it at AIV. Some of the edits were blatant hoaxes so the rest are inherently suspect given the lack of sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

Ultra respected Dignity: First of all congratulation for being an awesome administrator and being a very good human for contributing to an article related to a disabled kid. Secondly I want to inform you that the article on the subject, " Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" is about a kid, who can not walk and even can not sit properly. His fingers even tremble and His extent of disability is 65% that too progressive and permanent. He is suffering from fatal disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy and fighting bravely against death. Despite such grim medical conditions he invented circular chess for 6 players at the age of 9 and became youngest patent holder of India. He has already invented circular chess for 12 players and circular chess for 60 players and applied for patent. He is very near to completion of project of, " Economical power wheel chair accessible vehicle of the world. Last but not the least the article on the subject, " Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" will serve as real inspiration to the world. I Appeal to you Ultra respected dignity, that this article deserves justice and worth reaching to lot of people but unfortunately there was some thing negative discussed about the inspirational kid and that was really painful. Regards182.64.83.228 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Pepsi: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Twinkle also makes it very easy to do this. Warning properly makes it easier to get an admin to put a block in place. Ibadibam (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I only use warning templates when someone is persistent or the vandalism severe enough to warrant it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That's fair. I sometimes apply the same standard, especially to IP editors. This particular one seems to be pushing it, and flaunting our assumptions of good faith. Ibadibam (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN

Hi! I would like to encourage you to joining the conversation at WP:DRN. I don't want some voices to end up dominating the discussion or for anyone to feel that their input is not valued. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Wikipedia languages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Wikipedia languages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

208.65.144.242

Hey, on WP:AIV you said that 208.65.144.242 was a proxy server. I did a port scan and didn't see any open ports. How do you know its a proxy? I've given it a temporary 24h block that we can extend if its an OP. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an open proxy, only that the IP info linked from the contributions page says it is a confirmed proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Did you look at the refs in question ? [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh, guess I fudged up.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)