User talk:Rd232/archive7

RFC about vector

I think your publication of the RFC was grossly premature - in the discussion you reverted, I'm not sure you read the comments about drafted the proposition carefully, and there also effective structure for the actual RFC - number list for "support" and "oppose", bullets for comments/statemts. --Philcha (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Which discussion? The reason I created it is precisely because there are discussions all over the bloody place! Thank you for proving my point. Now feel free to discuss, propose, draft a proposal, etc, on the RFC page. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Village pump

Moving that many threads to a hidden location without so much as an edit summary is incredibly discourteous. I had to go through your user contributions to figure out what you even did. There's no explanation here and no obvious link to the new page, so effectively you just buried my thread. —Noisalt (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also looking for where this went, as there are unanswered questions within. Could you post the new location please, either here or in the pace from whence you removed it, the latter being the more usable location, I think? Thanks Bielle (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a link, under Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Vector_issues. I thought what I moved was all subheads of that, but I may have got carried away. Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I also struggled to find something I'd posted on the village pump, as outlined here. Perhaps you could make it more obvious in future where you've moved material using the edit summary? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad; I did it in a hurry and distracted (normally I would use an edit summary of course). I did put some links to the new place the things were moved to, but the whole thing's a mess and I was hoping somebody would unmess it (since I can't now). The conversations about Vector being absolutely all over the shop was a mess (so much repetition), but the RFC centralisation hasn't worked out any better. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no real harm was done and thanks for the explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Trout

My apologies for unclear wording. I was not attempting to say that you were being uncivil; it's simply that you're wrong in saying that "your lack of integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy" is perfectly polite conversation. Regardless of whether I lack those things, there can be no good reason to tell me that: unsolicited expression of privately-held opinions of this sort is never helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology/clarification, but you're wrong. The message was perfectly polite - it just wasn't very nice, and whether it was helpful is neither here nor there with regards to civility. In any case whatever problems may be ascribed to the message are far outweighed by the problems with your response, especially in the context of the preceding issues. Rd232 ^talk 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Isla de Sal

Maybe you could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla de sal on the basis that the nominator wants to withdraw it, but apparently does not know how to. Plus there is obviously zero probability of getting a consensus to delete, so no point wasting editors' time. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is I voted in it. It does no harm I think to leave it open - someone will close it eventually. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

O.k. - just a rather pointless one-sided discussion. I saw your note on systemic bias. I mostly start articles on non-English subjects, not from any noble motive but because I find the subjects more interesting than London bus routes and video game characters. They often have masses of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Video games I can understand, if you're into that, but bus routes? :) Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus all the good ones have been taken. London Buses route 36. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

McCain

I won't revert you but I think you should have joined the discussion and am disappointed in your lack of involvement in discussion and your revert. There is no BLP issue that requires your edit either. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I just made a comment; there is a BLP issue since stating it as fact contradicts a BLP subject on a key biographical fact, making him a liar; and there is no need to have a BLP reason to revert per se. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So you shouldn't per say have claimed any BLP in your edit summary, I am disappointed in your edit and you could easily have discussed with me, I have wasted a fair bit of time looking at it, when no one else was there to help and now you demean me claiming I am inserting BLP violations, thanksOff2riorob (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "claim BLP" in my edit summary, I referred to WP:BLPN. i.e. "per the discussion at..." Rd232 ^talk 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"too poorly sourced"?? Well, Admin Rd232, just jump right into the middle of a hornets nest, why don't you. I guess your talk page is now the forum for discussion on the subject rather than the article's own talk page. Well, since we now have a change of venue, lets get down to brass tacks... First of all I think it is not your place to say what is or is not poorly sourced on Wikipedia. The editors, via consensus, do that. Second, you have short circuited Wikipedia policy and procedures by jumping in the middle of a editors disagreement and picking a side. That also is not your place. Third, I think you did not bother to check my refs. - To Wit: "On John McCain's Senate website he states: "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon..." [[1]] - This is MCCAIN himself on his official US Government website stating he was born in COLON. Change the article back to the way it was please. --Britcom 04:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion venue remains WP:BLPN, as my edit summary indicated. Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Seems like I was in the wrong yesterday, I got a bit hot under the collar about it at the time, sorry if I lashed out a bit at you. 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For closing that thread on WP:AN/I about treating stories from the Bible as fiction. I probably should have taken more care in how I expressed myself, but by the time I read it the conversation had left consideration of the actions violating WP:DISRUPT & WP:POINTY, & everyone was losing sight of the forest for the trees -- which is the goal of every troll. FWIW, I do have some concerns about recommending people to use {{In-universe/Generic}}, but for technical reasons, not of personal belief; e.g. using the template itself ends up populating a non-existent category, & the documentation on the template doesn't seem to address this. Do you know whom or where I would raise this issue? -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the template is new and I couldn't quite sort out the categorisation. User:Debresser would be able to do the technical aspect in a jiffy - assuming we can decide what the categorisation should be. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Badgering

Not constructive [2] Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

? I have some doubts when someone I respect says something like that, I want to know what they saw. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

El Cerrito, Valle del Cauca

ok, but i've necessity now for this place, do I need this Article, that a few is improved... in German it is good, and have I seen that you speak tedesco..quindi.. you would be prepared to restore the Article founding yourself on the German?..thanks of true heart... and good weekend.

I write you this because I have intention to make him/it translate in various languages and not all they understand the Spaniard... and the English is the most diffused language in Wikipedia. an embrace still♥--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The English article is much the same as the German - it just needs some minor copyediting. This copyediting doesn't need to draw on the German version. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sure he meant to notify you: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a statement. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You weren't really involved, but it was a thread you started, so: [4] Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 09:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

[[5]]. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the Help/Advice

I really appreciate your input and advice with regard to my edits on Marco Rubio. While I am a long time user/ consumer of Wikipedia I am only beginning to become accustomed with the rules of editing. I'm sorry for violating the 3 revert rule and I suppose I should have contacted an administrator earlier. Also, I've changed my signature to the same as my username.Acp39 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for changing your signature. You did the right thing in asking for help at BLPN, and as I said, there are valid exceptions to the 3RR rule, and there was one here. I just wanted to be clear that this particular case was an exception. Rd232 ^talk 00:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Walpin AfD

Currently the pointer on Grundle's page goes to the "keep" AfD from a while ago. You need to make a "2nd Nomination" page, which you can figure out how to do sooner than I can. PhGustaf (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird, Twinkle got the notification link wrong, but everything else seems fine. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 02:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sports in" vs "Sport in"

Given that "sports" is a American English term (and apparently Canadian English also), I've reverted your move of Sports in Puerto Rico to Sport in Puerto Rico, as Puerto Rico is definitely a US-related topic, per ENGVAR. I also reverted the move of Sports in the Dominican Republic, as this was the first editor's choice of title, also per ENGVAR. WHile I understand the desire some have for "consistency" in article titles, I believe ENGVAR takes precedence in these cases. I also not that Sports in the Untied States and Sports in Canada have also been moved in the past, the US article being reverted almost immediately. I moved the Canada article back to it's original title a few minutes ago, though that one may be disputed, having been at the "sport" title for over 3 years now. - BilCat (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I had no idea there was a difference. I thought it was just singular/plural. Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You're apparently not the only one who didn't realize this. It's just another peculiarity of North American English. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK

Thanks for going and looking at the status page first. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Wires crossed - I did. Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Link

Since you are the admin who recorded the editing restriction, I want to point out this note to you. R.F.'s contributions today include over 1000 edits with the same edit summary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough minor block evasion

Please note that Rich Farmbrough edited [6] while being logged out. He confirmed that this was him here. I am not in a position to increase his block, but he clearly has no intention of following some basics like not editing pages apart from your own talk page while being blocked, commenting on this with "it's no bother". Fram (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK changes

You are more informed on this that I am, so I think that you or someone involved deeply with the discussion should write up a detailed story under the Dispatches banner. If you can't do it, can you direct me to someone who can? ;) Cheers, ResMar 04:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have a story, but writing up a summary of the whole process well is quite a lot of work (even if the summary remains brief). I don't really have the time. I would also say that it's probably a bit too soon, since implementation issues are still being discussed. I'm not really sure who to ask about the writing up; but for some reason Gatoclass springs to mind. Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it can't be that difficult. I would do it myself but I have IRL commitments that I intend to honor. ResMar 20:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at WP:AN.
Message added 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC/U

Thanks for the courtesy of a discussion; meanwhile:

"RfC/Us are closed when no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and/or the dispute appears to have stopped."

If you were subject of one of these, I doubt you'd want it hanging over your head for long, or at all. Meanwhile, in the absence of input in the last seven days, "the dispute appears to have stopped". Either way, if Nyttend doesn't wish to have any input, that should be part of the input to an ArbCom case. Meanwhile, I see no reason to flog a dead horse when nobody seems that interested, and this issue should either move on, or die. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, note an extended period of time. Which given the reference to 30 days on that page is hardly a week. Since Nyttend hasn't engaged with the discussion beyond the flawed Response, perhaps he's not that bothered. At any rate, I think he should have a chance to engage when he returns from his wikibreak. If there is consensus among the participants to close now, fine, but I don't see a basis for doing a bold early close. Rd232 ^talk 01:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Provided you will extend to him the same courtesy as you would expect on your self-advertised "Wikibreak". The difference is that you are still editing, and perhaps he isn't. That's why I suggested it should go elsewhere. Wikibreak should not be an escape clause, which is why I reserved the position of taking it to ArbCom in the absence of a response. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by my "self-advertised "Wikibreak"". And the likelihood is that closing it now will lead it to it being swept under the carpet. At least Nyttend should have a chance to respond again before closure - he may have been waiting for more input, who knows? Anyway, if you want to propose closure on the talk page, fine. Rd232 ^talk 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant "Semi-retirement", above, as it's a contradiction in terms. Nyttend is an admin; if he wants to unclose the RFC to respond, he could do so himself. Contrariwise, if he wants to walk away and brush this under the carpet he can also do that, with any attendant consequences. I hold no brief for him in any regard. Meanwhile, keeping RFCs open when they have clearly stalled does not appear to me to be a useful use of resources, and I thought I have made the position plain on that. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a contradiction, but it has nothing to do with a wikibreak. The RFC guidelines are there so people don't go around making unilateral decisions about what's "stalled". Propose closure on the talk page, or let it be. Rd232 ^talk 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So you're talking about taking me to ArbCom? I'm sorry, but work in grad school as I have for the next few weeks will have career-long implications for me, so I can't devote significant thought to Wikipedia. I can make edits like I've made in the last few days without putting significant thought into it, but such is not true about a response such as you suggest. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't, no. I was expecting you to engage more with the RFCU than you have. If you don't have time now, it's better to wait til you do than to give up on it. Rd232 ^talk 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Rd232, thank you for sorting out WPUruguay importance values. If there is a golden rule on importance, please let me know in my talk page, as I will be assessing more articles of this WP. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! I will check Venezuela and follow suit. As long as top and high are clear, mid from low should be relatively obvious. WP Uruguay is mostly deserted now. I am moving things and thanks to a lot of help I get, Montevideo is on its way to something good. Maybe this will wake up some interest. If there is more movement later on, I will ask you for some WP tools. I have set up a page here to get some idea of what is going on and for easy navigation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Uruguay/Categorization which will do for the time being. Hoverfish Talk 17:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Late Victorian Holocausts

Hi Rd232, I recently came across the article Late Victorian Holocausts and noticed your name in the contributions history. Do you think the book is worth considering as a source for expanding the British Empire FA? It seems to have won an award from the World History Association, which as far as I can tell is a reputable and influential academic body. Related discussions at Talk:British_Empire#Economic_impact_on_Britain_and_the_colonies and following talk page sections. Cheers, --JN466 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the views that book represents are certainly notable enough for inclusion; I haven't read the book myself but the author is a fairly notable scholar, and the WHA is a notable body in the area of "world history" (it's the "World History" Association, not World "History Association"; probably you've seen the definition on their website). The book is part of a broader tradition of Marxist scholarship, cf eg Accumulation by dispossession (the concept more than the WP article, which isn't great) which is notable and deserves mention. The resistance on that talk page is pretty strong (and perhaps a bit nationalist...) though, so it might be advisable to work on the Historiography article first, see how that goes, and then propose mentioning it in the main article. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understood that it was about "World History" as a field of research, but it is easy to slip into the other interpretation, especially when it occurs adjacent to terms like the "American Historical Association". Some of the talk page comments struck me as unduly defensive, too. --JN466 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A very wrong decision

This article was nominated on deletion and kept. you misused your administrative tools.Please see here--Mbz1 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that your action is very irresponsible and cowboy like. Actually, if you really hate the article and want to kill it, you should write a very good explanation of a regular AFD (not speedy). It is cowboy like actions that make Wikipedia look like a bunch of unruly children running the place. Actually, that's insulting children. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"if you really hate the article and want to kill it"... have you even heard of WP:AGF? I overlooked the third AFD, partly because there was no AFD history box and the AFD history's a bit messy. Mistake undone. Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you disagree with my comment. Sorry.  :( பின்லாந்துF (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

rd232, actually your mistake is not undone because there was 3 delete votes in the last few minutes by the users, who would not have been voting on DR, if they have not seen the post on AN/I.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI is the highest traffic page there is; so any sample of users coming from there to the AFD is as unbiased as it gets. If some or most or even all don't vote the way you want, tough cookies. Rd232 ^talk 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, I'm sure your mistake, recreating a deleted article, also deserves to be undone. The more delete votes, the better. Yworo (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, I am afraid you've not a slightest idea what you're talking about, yet another reason why you cannot be an administrator.

rd232, please do not tell me that users, who frequent AN/I are unbiased. user:Tarc is as biased as any one could ever be.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to pick and choose who participates in an AFD! ANI as a venue is neutral, by virtue of different opinions balancing out. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

D;--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I archived AN/I again. It should not influence DR. Please stop edit warring, and do not restore it. you have done lots of wrong already.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• None of this is helpful to the encyclopedia. Let it go to Deletion Review if necessary, but expecting a counsel of perfection from human administrators is just ridiculous. Mistakes are inevitably made here; that's why we have review procedures. But witchhunts do not help, and assuming bad faith does not help in the slightest. Appropriate venue, please, without prior assumption of blame. Otherwise, please feel free to cast the first stone. Rodhullandemu 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If ANI would be a source of fresh eyes and uninvolved editors looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates, wouldn't that be a good thing? Right now, the AfD is a mangled mess of dug-in involved editors arguing back and forth. betsythedevine (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant that No consensus defaults to keep... Rd232 ^talk 02:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your conduct on an/i

There's no reason to keep the post opened. I consider your undoing my archiving to be trolling. Please have a nice day and don't you ever post to my talk page again --Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, that really helps. Let's move forwards, and forget this please. DRV is where it belongs, and personal comments do not help to improve the encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)trolling? "bad administrator" (previous edit summary)? "don't ever post..."? I had no prior involvement with this and I'm not watching the AFD; I just came across it via BLPN, so there's really no need for that bad an attitude, and I explained why your hatting was inappropriate (not archiving, which doesn't hide the text). I understand you're peeved at the possibility that my mistake led to ANI exposure which might change the result of the AFD. But if it does change the result, then that's the result it should be - more community input from an unbiased sample (it's not like it was a post at a wikiproject) can't be a bad thing. Having your work deleted is never nice and the threat of it may be surprisingly stressful, but, y'know, try and see the big picture. Rd232 ^talk 02:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I cannot care less, if the article is deleted. If it is deleted it will be for the best. Then I will nominate on deletion this one just to see how the ones, who're crying wolf about inappropriateness of using religion and ethnicity now will vote on DR for that other article. About ANI, you explained nothing. If there was not for you misconduct, there should not have been AN/I post, and yes, your undoing the archiving is done to irritate me, and it is trolling on its worst.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Welcome to the wonderful world of mbz1, Rd. "She" also once popped onto my talk page with the sort of neener neener horseshit, followed with a "but never post on my talk page!" demand. These are the tactics that colors the wonderful cesspool of the Israeli-Palestine topic area. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hi, there,tarc, that very tarc, who cowardly attacked me on wikipedia review because he could not have been sanctioned on wikipedia for his incivility there.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I called you out on my own talk page as well, sunshine. The venue doesn't matter to me. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it is the only thing you know how to do - "calling people out". Wikipedia would have been a much better place without tarcs.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on my brief experience with you, Mbz1, it'd be better without you too. Yworo (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference between my statement and your statement is that, when I make a statement, I have something to support it, and you do not. Wikipedia could live without any of us, but it will not be better off without me.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We can do without things; we can also do without an abrasive personality who thinks they are above the rules. Yworo (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice images, Mbz1. @All: is all this necessary? Can't we all just get along? I know I know, it's the I/P area I avoid like the plague... Sigh. Rd232 ^talk 08:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note of reply

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header

I like the new header quite a bit. Nice work. However, deleting the old header with a long edit history is not the way this should be done. Either a history swap should be done with the redesign redirect, or the new header can be moved to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Header2, directly replaced at WP:NCHD, and the original redirected to the new. I have a lot of experience with such matters and can perform either if it's not your area.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) OK, if you can take care of that whichever way you think best, thanks for that. I was focussed on minimising the time the page is down. PS any improvement suggestions welcome - I had some input but not that much. Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

History swap done. I'll look at the header with a more critical eye now and report back. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For the "sorry-we-don't-do-that" subpage: I don't like the name much, mostly because I think the page is misdirected. It's hard to anticipate users who are {{astray}}, and I don't think the majority of those answering the question (by clicking on the link) "...that is not related to using or editing Wikipedia" are "astray users" but mostly just looking for a reference desk type service. Certainly we can incorporate some of the text from astray (I think its author did a good job;-) but I think it needs to be flipped around. Something like:

"If you have a general knowledge question please visit the reference desk. However, if you came here thinking we were directly affiliated with a subject you read about here, please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We have a vast database of 6,822,762 articles, which many questions can be answered by searching, but we have no inside track on the subjects reflected here, which are simply encyclopedia entries that we have no relationship with or control over.

One trivial thing. I wish the bubbles were more uniform is size. Purely aesthetic though, and fixing the code to address it is outside my expertise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mm, well there is no direct link to that page except from immediately below the Knowledge Question option... it seems fine to me in terms of being very clear for those who come there and do suffer this misapprehension, whilst it's also clear for anyone who doesn't but was hoping for something we can't provide. I've added a couple of examples though. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most users will figure it out but that does not address the issue that the page is set up as assuming the users are astray when it does not appear the majority will be. The text above provides that function without making the assumption.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well alright, edit it then. Rd232 ^talk 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

because you have asked

you are such an kind of administrators because of whom good content contributors quit wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

...good content contributors who think their good content contributions on non-contentious things mean they should get their way on contentious issues and generally excuses obnoxious behaviour... - there, fixed that for you. Rd232 ^talk 23:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Why did you protect the New contributors' help page? Isn't that a place where new contributors go for help? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page recently? Because if you can't figure out the answer after doing so, then clearly the design needs clarifying! Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see now, thanks for your response. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are you ignorant or do you think it;s appropriate to reference racist murderers? Please lake a look. File:Lynching2.jpg [image redacted to link - Rd232 ^talk 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)] Have I done this to anyone? It makes me sick when I see people like you compare requesting an inquiry to admin tool usage to this atrocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs)

Wow, so many things wrong with that, I guess it does need a more detailed response. (a) the article lynching is heavily biased to the US perspective, but you can still see from it that the term is generic. (b) it's a metaphor. It's no more sensible to get upset about its origin than about references to the Crusades because those involved thousands of people killed, many brutally. It's just a metaphor. (And it's not like burning people as witches - the other metaphor - was historically a nice activity.) (c) as you can see from the RFC and the talk page, I'm not the one saying the metaphor is appropriate, only that if people insist on using derogatory terms to be dismissive about people in that situation, that's the correct term. Perhaps you don't know "wikt:derogatory". Rd232 ^talk 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I did misunderstand your overall position. I saw you replying to me and didn't double check your original statement. I believed you were one of the ones throwing the term witch hunt and one-upping it with lynch mob. I apologize. I have very little tolerance for that term, it's thrown around here way to often for my tastes.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I think it's better that a logically correct but factually incorrect derogatory term be used than one which is both logically incorrect and factually incorrect. (Well, perhaps not much better...) Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Made a template

While you were posting your notice at Talk:Main page I was creating a template to do the same... I replaced yours, only cause I think mine is a bit more visible, plus in case a similar notice needs to be placed in other locations it can be edited from one place. It's at {{nvd}}. Feel free to tweak it. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

Going to enforce a wikibreak for myself now. Bye. Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll be missed.--SPhilbrickT 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Wizard

Just thought you'd be interested to see an exchange on my talk page - in short, an admin at the Spanish Wikipedia is proposing to replicate the concept of the Article Wizard there.--SPhilbrickT 15:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 just started a 6-week break from editing, FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello!, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your support and your participation in our village pump. The negotiation over there is sometimes a bit though, but I am sure that we will come to terms. Maybe I need to contact you somewhen if I need help with the implemantation. By the way, do you have any statistics about the benefits of the introduction of the wizard in this wiki? --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics are hard to come by; there is Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard and Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback, and you could ask at WP:VPT (probably would get just anecdotal evidence tho). Incidentally, I don't know if {{New unreviewed article}} exists on es.wp or if it's worth porting that as well. Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... [[7]] Carrite (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your fix at the SP

Thanks; and my edit summary after yours was wrong (it's very late at night). It's John Vanbrugh that was delisted Monday, just after the window closed—that will be for next week's Signpost. Tony (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK sure. I only did the Features SP once - it's hard work I know. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification

July 2010

You created Mass killings under Communist regimes to make a point, even though you according to your own statement do not think the article merits existence. So this is intentional disruption in order to make a point which is not allowable according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is there to make it easier to have civil and constructive discussions. Violating Wikipedia policy may lead to you getting blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I said I thought it was as valid as the Communist one. Since plenty of people argue that the Communist one is valid, in can hardly be POINTy to act in agreement with them. Furthermore, doing so opened up the genuine possibility of a worthwhile article developing from it, which would disprove my initial feeling that neither article was really valid. This is not POINTy, it is the opposite - explorative and constructive in the best sense. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I said I thought it was as valid as the Communist one. - Which you think should be deleted. Hence you created an article you don't think should exist in order to make a point. It's intentional disruption according to WP:POINT. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. If the Communist one was in any danger of being deleted, then creating an equally-valid article could be disruptive. It isn't, so it isn't. Logically all those voting Keep on the Communist article will be supporting the equally-valid (albeit far less developed, being a few hours old) other one. And perhaps the concept of being able to change your mind is alien to you: but in creating the article I consciously allowed for the possibly I might be proved wrong, and that actually both articles can be turned into something worthwhile. You've also completely overlooked the fact (as have I in our exchanges) that I didn't actually vote Delete on the Communist, I voted Neutral/Rewrite. Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance with improving the APE page is much appreciated. As you will have noted, some people get testy when you try to get things done without help ;-) Lindorm (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Nn-warn-reason

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Nn-warn-reason , 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. Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList Table

OK, I have worked some more on linking bios to the "red people" on the JournoList table. It takes time but it's fairly easy to do since almost all individuals have been active in some aspect of communications, public policy, or academic work and have institutional affiliations and bios of some kind available. I've even run across a couple of individuals who, on their own websites, shout out "Why not me? Am I too boring or insignificant to be called out by Tucker Carlson?"

But as I worked on finding bios I've become convinced that digging out that information and putting it all in a table isn't doing anybody any favors except those who want to find an easy way to harass or persecute people for being a member of this discussion group called JournoList. And I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to that -- even if it's just a potential. Anybody who is hellbent on getting the information will be able to get it. But don't let WP be a witting agent in that process.

So I recommend that the Table be deleted.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Alright, alright. People make mistakes, my browser crashed before I could double check it anyway. ValenShephard 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

no worries :) Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

:p

WP:STICK

In this edit, you literally wrote out the entire name for a page. You probably know this, but next time, you can just as easily put in WP:STICK and get the same result and save yourself ALOT of typing. Also, see below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For having the patience to type out the entire name for WP:STICK in this edit, I hereby award you this barnstar. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

well :) actually I just went to the page via a shortcut and copied+pasted, which while more effort than just typing the shortcut is less than typing it all out! And it's clearer and more emphatic with the full title. Thanks anyway! :) Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your decision in the AN thread about RegentsPark

I don’t want to have a lengthy debate with you about this, since it’s your prerogative to make whichever decision in this thread you think is appropriate, and the only thing that really matters to me is that the issue be examined closely, which it now has been. However, I wanted to ask whether when you made your decision, you also considered RegentsPark’s debates with other users about race and intelligence issues on the talk page for the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article. Your explanation of why you considered RegentsPark uninvolved didn’t mention this debate, so it wasn’t clear to me whether you saw the link to it. If you didn’t, I think your decision needs to also consider RegentsPark’s debates over content issues in these articles with other users there. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did look at that, and the talk comments there appeared a pretty neutral attempt by an uninvolved admin to give advice. It's certainly not evidence of "strong opinions about it", as you had said at AN. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for future reference, what’s the threshold for Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED in cases like this one? My impression was that RegentsPark’s statement that he considers the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence to be fringe, that Wikipedia does not present it that way even thought it should (both of which he’s stated in the arbitration case), and that he advocates topic bans for editors who try to present it as something other than this (which he’s stated in the AN/I threads about these articles) was sufficient to make him involved in this dispute. If it isn’t, I don’t really understand what constitutes involvement here. Does an administrator need to be consistently active in a dispute in order to be considered involved? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no defined (and probably no definable) threshold. Merely expressing an opinion on content is not sufficient, since this would make it nearly impossible to give any constructive advice in a concrete situation. UNINVOLVED states "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." From what I've seen, there's nothing that clearly falls outside that. In this instance, my decision to close the discussion was also partly resting on the fact that the effects of the disputed action are inherently temporary (unlike, say, blocking someone, with the attendant block log entry). In addition, as I noted at AN, errors or misjudgements or whatever forming part of a larger pattern of behaviour are better handled at WP:RFC/U - an option still open to you if you really think it necessary. RFC/U of course leads directly only to voluntary agreement, but if that doesn't work it's a much better basis for coming to AN or ArbCom for sanction, if that proves necessary. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation.

As I stated in the AN thread, I’m only aware of one other possible misuse of sysop power from RegentsPark in the past, and just two possible instances of this probably aren’t enough for an RFC/U. But I’ll definitely consider that option if a pattern of questionable decisions ever seems to be emerging. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Betacomand discussion

I object to your closure of the Betacommand discussion at ANI. It's a contentious issue that deserves a full hearing and not to be cut off less than two days after being opened. I also disagree with your characterization of the discussion in your closure but that's a separate issue. ElKevbo (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It may have had marginally less than 2 days (46 hours), but there was lots of involvement, the thread had got rather large and unwieldy, and the balance of opinion was clear (and it's not like there's a set time length for AN discussion). If you feel strongly enough to undo the closure yourself, go nuts. Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, of course, that if you do so you'll be going against what I make as: 6 explicit supports for N419BH's motion to close + 4 implicit supports (for closure), against 1 explicit oppose and 1 "let's wait a bit" (>12 hrs before my close). (I haven't counted you either way as you didn't expressly oppose the closure.) Rd232 ^talk 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to demonstrate clearly that the discussion was closed to early, and you ignored all the opposes to any relaxing of restrictions too? You should reopen the thread. Verbal chat 10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"That seems to demonstrate" - what is that? And I did not "ignore" the opposes, I weighed them. consensus does not require unanimity. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anurag Dikshit

HI RD232,

i have just checked up on Anurag Dikshits page and noticed that you have locked it further to your revision of the copy. I am a little surprised and wanted to know why i am not able to change this back to the copy that we put up there. the facts of the article previously there written by user 2005 has factual inacuracies and every time we change it and then ask for time to add in teh refernces that back up our content - 2005 changes it back. I realise that wikipedia is a self controlled site and resource but it would be nice to have the opportunity to ensure that content is correct - otherwise it feels as though you are not allowed to add anything becauser users such as 2005 monopolise the content.

I am hoppy to put in any refereces that back up the content we add but i need the time to do it!

thanks for your understanding and i hope you remove the block you have put on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesmaharrisonPRO1 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You, another user and an IP are reverting to a version of the article which adds PR stuff about Kusuma Trust and removes various details and references.[8] You (plural) appear to be acting on behalf of the subject. This is generally frowned upon, because it's hard in this case to have the necessary neutrality. You would do better to limit yourselves to talk page comments about problems with the article, additional sources, etc. You can also use dispute resolution appropriately. You could also create a userspace draft if it helps to illustrate your points. Finally, the article is only locked to very new accounts, so in a few days you will be able to edit again even with the block (semi-protection) still in place. Rd232 ^talk 12:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for this feedback - it is very useful and I will proceed following the correct protocol with regards to content and references. In the meantime you may want to speak to user 2005 about abusing his privalages.

thanks for your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesmaharrisonPRO1 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with User:2005. You though may be unaware of WP:SOCK - this appears to be your second account. If you just forgot your password for the first that's OK, but you should normally only use one account. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Chavez POV

By the way, several editors have banded together on the Chavez article to add the POV tags and try to remove some kind of "bias" which they are not being kind enough to explain. They have not gotten a consensus on putting those tags back and are referring to an inconclusive talk that happened in February. Your attention to these issues would be appreciated.ValenShephard (talk)

Have you read WP:CANVASS lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; we worked a long time on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

yep :) Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Morales Edits

I removed a POV edit on the coup attempt you and another editor (one who admits bias) removed it with no dscussion. Likewise on the Chavez no facts about that are negative are being permitted.Unicorn76 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You removed text as unsourced; I undid that, providing a source. If you want to discuss it further, the article talk page is the place. General claims about censorship are useless and should be avoided: content on Wikipedia is created collaboratively via consensus, and you should Assume Good Faith of other editors. There is dispute resolution available if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your source, very dubious with adefinite agenda. He is basicly taking Morales word. May I suggest reference to the U.S be removed entirely. FYI this is not the only post including discussion pages post other editor has removedUnicorn76 (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, the attribution of the information source could be clearer; the documentation of the whole thing needs improving. Rather than removing mention of the US, it needs to be clear who's saying what. I think the main place for documenting this properly should be 2008 unrest in Bolivia, and elsewhere should have relatively brief summaries.

As for "this is not the only post including discussion pages post other editor has removed" - if you want me to actually do anything, you'll need to be less cryptic than that. As an aside, you should be aware that talk page contributions very occasionally get lost by accident due to edit conflicts. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage of climate change

Excellent article, well done. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mann

Your removal of the entire section of the AG's investigation into Mann's research was entirely improper, especially for an article that is subject to probation and part of an ongoing Arb case. Several editors had been discussing this section and had been working together and compromising on edits for the better part of the afternoon. ChrisO started the BLP request about the fraud allegations, and after only one comment, you came in and deleted the entire section that was very well sourced with multiple reliable sources. As you have now been made aware, there is an entire article on the AG investigation, and since it is an investigation into Michael Mann's research, it is improper to unilaterally remove the entire section from Michael Mann article without so much as a comment on the talk page. Please self-revert until discussion has progressed further and a consensus is reached. Thank you. Minor4th 01:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we don't fart about unnecessarily with strongly negative issues (like, er, vague accusations of fraud). I added a link back to the standalone article. In the circumstances the proper thing is to remove without delay, and await consensus to re-add. Rd232 ^talk 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Portal

Hi. Some of us are setting up a new Renewable Energy Portal. Feel free to contribute and discuss the matter at Portal talk:Renewable energy#Merger proposal. Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Debate

You are invited to join a discussion on the citation style to be used for the Hugo Chavez page. I know its kind of trivial, but a unified style can make the page look classy. As you are an active editor your input is greatly appreciated. To have your voice heard please go to WT:VEN under the heading titled Citation StyleThanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack question.

I am wondering what we can do if a personal attack is made? (Accusation of being "Chavez-lovers")

I am also curious as what to do when threatened by an obviously bias editors with being blocked for disruption, when other editor is also possible accusable of this? ValenShephard (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually wrote a substantial reply to this, but it seems to have vanished into the ether. Long story short, use dispute resolution if necessary, but try to resolve things with discussion on article and user talk pages first. Also, patience is often in short supply in these areas, and discussing things before acting is often helpful, even if it leaves problems in place for the time being (WP:Editing policy). Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree; Valen, if you would spend more time reading the talk page, it would save time for everyone. Also, while the post from Lecen was decidedly unhelpful, it wasn't a "personal attack". Further, I can't "threaten" you with a block; only admins can block, and I'm not one. Warnings and maintenance tags are a standard part of How Wiki Works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it wasn't a personal attack, as it was directed at several editors.. ValenShephard (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

I was just on my way to the NPOV noticeboard, when I noticed that you did the right thing; thanks for saving me time, which is one thing I don't have! I am going to be very busy at FAC over the next week to ten days, as the other delegate has had to take a break for personal matters, so I'm unlikely to be able to keep up with Chavez (and then I have two overseas guests in September, arrrgh, high maintenance). I'm really hoping the disruptive editing from a handful of editors will stop so that I don't have to engage other dispute resolution when I return; it is unfortunate that so many editors, from both "sides", won't learn policy and make it impossible for us to make any progress there ( to wit, it can be done-- referring to Steve's good work at The Revolution). That is why I was hoping 1RR would help, but I guess AN/I is too busy arguing over citation style to care about anything else ! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, you may be interested in the citation style debacle at AN/I, and the associated RFC, as it applies to my/our concerns at Chavez/Ven articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I took another look at the article and the situation. But it would be helpful if you didn't view disagreements as "disruptive editing"; and templating people is rarely helpful and often inflammatory (WP:DTTR). Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded here, and he's been disruptive in multiple ways, in spite of a recent block! I don't know how to get through to editors who don't seem to read talk pages or edit summaries, and continue behaviors even after a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeated behaviours? My 1RR block was a one off, its not even possible on the chavez article. ValenShephard (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St Jean Bosco massacre

Hello! Your submission of St Jean Bosco massacre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Venezuelan presidential election, 1998

Hello! Your submission of Venezuelan presidential election, 1998 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified, in particular with satisfying the criterion for a 5x expansion. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EdChem (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

:)

Great work on the trade unions in Colombia article, thanks. --Soman (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. :) Rd232 ^talk 08:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing and uncivil behavior

I've come across your inappropriate POV pushing and antagonistic behavior in several articles. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that strives for a Neutral Point of View. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your improvements at Chuck Neubauer look good. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I'm pretty tolerant of good faith editing efforts, but you are way over the 3RR and are edit warring at Diane Francis. Consensus is that the content is appropriate and you can't override two editors. If you want further input please take it to the BLP noticeboard as I've suggested repeatedly. It's shocking that you are an admin here but violate the rules with such abandon. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with this. You are almost certainly Grundle2600 - who I seem to recall I indefblocked over exactly this BLP violation. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Has there been a CU done already? Just curious, as I've dealt with this guy a few times here and there...and dealt with Grundle quite a bit...but he seems a bit too aggressive to be Grundle. If it is, I'm amazed at the level of duplicity he was able to pull off, using this as the (relatively) good-hand account for 3 months while running the obvious socks day in and day out. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a CU, and just emailed you the behavioural evidence. I'm nearly certain that this is Grundle's "good behaviour" account. Rd232 ^talk 15:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more less familiar with Grundle's editing pattern and I don't think it's him. Might still be some other sock of course. I changed my mind. I wouldn't be surprised if that editor had an account in the past that was indef blocked. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd

Hi Rd, I don't know what the issue here was, but you were reverting against him and were already involved in that article, so you can't block him. Please unblock him asap, and take it to the 3RR board. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the user talk discussion on his page? BLP comes first. Rd232 ^talk 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But you were the one reverting against him, and you'd already been involved in the article. It's really better to let someone uninvolved decide whether he needs to be blocked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then review the block, and unblock if you think appropriate. Because of the combination of likely sockpuppetry (with history of socking on the issue and article, such that it was semi-protected a week ago) and BLP violation I felt it was right to block then, given the 4th quasi-revert's demonstrated intent to persist with edit-warring. It's not like this is a content disagreement - this violation has been removed by quite a number of editors since December. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly a content disagreement, and there is consensus against you on the talk page. It appears you blocked to win a content dispute.Minor4th 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How often do I need to ask you to review the edit history? Also WP:NOTAVOTE - arguments count. Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed the edit history and I am referring to the ongoing and current discussion on the talk page. I'm sure you're aware that CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. Hope that helps. Minor4th 20:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Do you think the discussion at the point I blocked constituted a consensus in favour of inclusion? Rd232 ^talk 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Minor4th 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't, because of Wbehun's "If there is a good reason why her stated views are irrelevant I'm interested in hearing it" - and I presented good reason. You don't analyse discussion on the basis that nobody changes their mind through debate - cf WP:NOTAVOTE. You have to count Wbehun as undecided, given his question and my response. And of course this little discussion between us ignores the article's edit history. (It's under the History tab - you may be aware of it.) Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd, as you invited me to review the block, I've unblocked him. I make no comment on the content dispute, or the sock allegations. I unblocked only because admins shouldn't block editors they're in a content dispute with, and every time it happens it undermines faith generally, so it affects everyone. I'll put the article on my watchlist too in case problems there continue. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not consider myself in a content dispute, because of the strength of the prior consensus that it was a BLP violation. And as I said, I would not have blocked myself if I hadn't been so sure he was the sock of a banned user (on which CU confirmation is still outstanding). Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The backstory below sheds further light on the editing history on this matter. I don't think it is fair to say I was "in a content dispute". Rd232 ^talk 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Backstory

Previous removals of the content in question: December 2009

1. User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper [9] and again for reinsertion of "2 children" as vandalism [10]
2. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen [11]
3. WMC [12] and rvv "2 children" [13]
4. User:PhGustaf [14] and again for reinsertion of "despite 2 children" [15] as vandalism x2 [16]

• consensus end December: keep "one child policy" view without "2 children" in proximity.

March 2009

1. OTRS ticket removes it entirely [17]

July 2009;;

1. Rd232 first removal July 2010 [18]

August 2009

1. User:Prolog [19] several times, adding semi-protection against sock-puppetry
2. User:Steven J. Anderson [20]
3. 21/22 Aug - Rd232 removing 2x from Wbehun and several more times from Freakshownerd

Warning: your edit on Freakshownerd's talk page

You should be sanctioned yourself for this [21]. After blocking him to win an edit war, taunting him on his talk page while he's blocked, repeatedly posting on his talk page when he has asked you not to, having the block reviewed and overturned, and then showing up on his talk page AGAIN to argue .... it is really very poor behavior for any editor but it is beyond the pale for an admin to act that way. Please think about your behavior and keep it in check. Please do not post on Freakshownerd's talk page again, and please do not use your admin tools against an editor you are in a content dispute with. Minor4th 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise we have differing views on CC (the only place we've crossed paths), but wouldn't your efforts be better spent calming down Freakshownerd?? I mean I know we cut blocked editors some frustration slack but this is just lovely. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We really need to get that CU going, it's almost guaranteed to be either one or the other at this point; purely on behavioral grounds it'd be who I guessed...hell, he's even running around to various admins' pages to savage them for supporting your block, that is classic...but the editing evidence is rather strong for Grundle. Note the attempt to insert the same blogspot.com -sourced junk about supporting one-child policy but having 2 kids; Freakshownerd, today and Grundle 11 Dec 09. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. If you can prod any Checkusers via IRC or something (which I don't use) that would be a help. The sooner the CU is done the better. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that edit more closely, the blogspot was there in the article and had been for a long time. What Freakshownerd did was push it into its own paragraph - quite bizarrely. What I overlooked until now (zero edit summary not helping, and the diff isn't the easiest to scan) was that he did make other changes there, which might be construable as NPOVing/cleanup (eg "best-selling" appears unsourced). Darn it, if it hadn't been for the combination of no edit summary and possibly unintentional bizarre formatting with the key "2 children" line, I wouldn't have felt the need to block him. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if any willing checkusers wander by, drop me an email and I'll forward the evidence (I'm abut to go to bed though). I've requested CU from one checkuser early yesterday but they must be busy (no reply yet). I've refrained from publishing the evidence by virtue of WP:BEANS (what you did wrong is ...). Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd, I've asked him to stop talking about you, so it would be helpful if you could also stop talking about him. Someone will get round to doing a CU soon enough, so until then it's best dropped. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your earliet question RD, yes, I have asked him to calm down too. I warned you earlier only because it could be considered a taunt when you went back to his talk page to argue after he asked you to not post on his talk page. Of course, I would also expect him to stop talking about you on his talk page if he expects you to stay away, and that point had been made to him. Re: your comment on CC articles, I wouldnt have a clue what your position is -- the only interactions I've had with you were related to BLP issues and anything related to climate change was not a dispute between us. I do think you have a good faith belief thay you are correctly enforcing the BLP policy, but I also think you have some misunderstandings about how it's to be applied and when it's appropriate to remove content. I think it would be worthwhile for you to ask a trusted admin who has experience in this area and who has not been involved in a lot of controversy and talk it through and see if you dont come up with a new understanding. You could use this latest dustup as a working example as well as the article where we butted heads before (now I dont even remember which article it was). Just trying to think of solutions here. When things have cooled off a bit, it wouldnt hurt to apologize to FSN too -- an apology often goes a long way and can even create a path for collaborative editing between former adversaries. Minor4th 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Remarks

Since F declared me persona non grata at his talk page, I'll expand here briefly on the matter of his final edit [22] yesterday to Diane Francis, for which I blocked him.

1. As the backstory described on this page and at Talk:Diane Francis now indicates (extracted post-block from the edit history) [also ANI discussion in December 2009], there was a consensus against including the content (one child policy + having 2 children) - and even in the lesser form (one child policy view cherrypicked as one of many views, while article mentions having 2 children) it led to an OTRS ticket. That ticket's removal of the rest of the issue's content had been enforced by a number of people (only once by me prior to 21 Aug). Another editor sought to include the full 1-child-policy+2-children version immediately prior to F, and asked on talk why it should not be included. I answered him, and F dismissed my comment as a "rant" and declared that there was no policy-based objection. Indeed, I had not mentioned any policy (beyond WP:BLP references in prior edit summaries), though only in a wikilawyer's mind does this possibly validate his response (the comment, and the edit warring). Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
2. It was the 4th revert on this topic in 15 hours. Continuity with the previous reverts is established by F's placing the sentence "Francis is married and has two adult children." (which clearly is one half of the issue in dispute) in a paragraph on its own. Whereas previously it was the final sentence in the lead paragraph, after the edit it is in its own paragraph, with 1 linebreak above and not 1 but 2 below. Whilst not in itself a direct and complete repetition of the previous reverts, it did highlight the same issue (in a bizarre way) and I interpreted it as a demonstration of willingness to go beyond the 3RR barrier on the matter, thus motivating a preventative BLP aspect to the block. F's earlier "rant" comment, and failure on talk to engage with the substantive issue raised despite claims of BLP violation and multiple reverts, were contributory to that interpretation. Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Had I not been so sure F was the sock of a banned user who would shortly be indef-blocked, I might have either not blocked myself, or registered it as a BLP block in the enforcement log. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4. The edit contained no edit summary, and the diff is a bit of a sea of red. As a result I overlooked some unrelated changes which would affected how I viewed the part in 2. It's possible that I wouldn't have blocked myself, or even asked for a block. Hard to say for sure at this point, but it was certainly information overlooked, and I acknowledge that and apologise for that. F of course should acknowledge that he was responsible for the content in 2. and for the lack of edit summary.
5. My own reverts to enforce the existing consensus that the text was a BLP violation amounted to 7 reverts in 48 hours, with the BLP exemption being relied on to exceed WP:3RR.
6. It remains the case that there is strong circumstantial evidence that F is the sock of a banned user (his post-block vitriol forms a minor part of this), on which basis I'd already asked for a CheckUser before the edit war occurred. CheckUser remains outstanding. Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: these are my views of the situation as I see it. Sadly, F has banned me from his talk page, so I can neither discuss this with him there (nor correct his misrepresentations), and he's been blocked for incivility, so can't respond here (not that I've seen any evidence of a desire to engage). This is somewhat distressing, but would be more so if it weren't so clear that F is a sock. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trade unions in Colombia

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Rd232. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NW (Talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've forwarded the evidence to you. Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Yeroushalmi

An editor has nominated David Yeroushalmi, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Yeroushalmi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More Grundle2600 nonsense

The following articles were created by sockpuppets of banned user Grundle2600. You should delete all of these articles:

Aiyana Jones

HD 10180

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking

Megaleledone setebos

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

Sack tapping

Spinoloricus sp. nov.

Lucy McGillicuddy (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They all either turned into decent articles with others' involvement, or (Obama Zombies) passed an AFD. If it hurts the encyclopedia more to delete, we don't. Rd232 ^talk 06:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

I am currently on an interaction ban with the user ChildOfMidnight. I've lost track of the link to the actual ban. In any case, where would I go to get that ban lifted? I've got no need to interact with a banned user, but it also ties my hands if a need arises to comment, such as in the current SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really a need to comment at the moment, but I would guess WP:ANI if the need to lift the ban arises (unless Arbcom imposed it? I don't recall). I would just wait and see. If you have specific information that you think is helpful, you can email me. Rd232 ^talk 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not exactly evidence, just questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Report an error

Hi Rd232. I have replied you at Village pump. Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think that the excluded pages (on the top of the code) need always _ for spaces. Main_Page, Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard and Yahoo!_Mail. emijrp (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right! Anything else I've missed? :) Rd232 ^talk 11:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Media coverage of climate change

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jose Antonia Varela

Hello, I didnt mean to seek cocky or something, I agree that he deserves an article. He has made a film with the help of Villa del Cine which is pretty well reported about online. ValenShephard (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I didn't think anything of it; it sounds like he ought to have an article. Rd232 ^talk 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos

If you could give me some advice. Blaxthos put a very rude threat on my discussion page. Would you give me some advice on how to deal with it. just looking at how this user attacks people I wish to know how to proceed. Thank you.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do understand why Blaxthos reacted like that, and I hope you do too - article talk pages are not a free-for-all to accuse people of crimes, and your comment about Media Matters' founder was also quite unnecessary. That said, WP:DTTR applies, and Blaxthos should really have given a personal message. Try to take it the right way (WP:AGF), and not get annoyed by it. I know those templated messages are official-looking and the higher-level ones are quite intimidating, but it's not necessarily a big deal. You can just accept your error being pointed out (in a not-ideal way - don't imitate this!), and move on. (You can delete the message if you like, to prevent it irritating you every time you come to your talk page.) I'll drop Blaxthos a note about DTTR. Rd232 ^talk 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

V=Blaxthos also erased my reference which you and others have been asking for wanting to put a change. I suggest you check his history of attacking others. Just look at the Fox page. 23:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs)

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - I'm sure you can sort this out on the relevant talk page (remember WP:AGF). If you really have issues you can't resolve, consider dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 23:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the insight. I honestly didn't check to see if that guy was a regular or not... for one, he's got a welcome template on his talk page, and for two most regulars don't go tossing around POV-laiden libel. I don't recall any previous interactions with him, but I've dealt with tons of folks over the years. Be that as it may, I generally will always (out of habit) issue a blp4im template when someone makes criminal accusations on Wikipedia; I do always try to include some sort of more detailed note as well (which I did in this case). I probably would have handled it differently if I knew he wasn't new to the block, but I don't see how my assumption or my actions were unreasonable. I'll do a little more thorough checking in the future.  :) Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's quite easy to use such templates too easily though - don't lose sight of how they might be read by people. Even for a newbie, such a high-level template is not ideal, at least if it hasn't been preceded by relevant discussion. Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My Bad.

I probably should have realized that he would have found away to thwart CU by now, and I was already personally convinced days ago even before your evidence was brought up. Now there's a whole hill of WP:BEANS for him to sort through when he makes his next sock because I hesitated. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... well he would probably have done the same exercise himself anyway as a post-mortem. waddyagonnado? Anyway, I kept back some bits that needed more follow-up, as it's quite strong enough as is. And as you said before, CoM knows how this stuff works; he just figured if he behaved himself, nobody would notice. Which was true, for quite a while. Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And really, if somehow he managed a miracle and snaked out of a positive sockpuppet finding, the road that "Freakshownerd" was headed down was heading to an indef sooner or later anyways. Karma. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to list you as an involved party or not, but I have asked ArbCom to extend his ban to indefinite instead of just resetting it again. It's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Sorian

Was going to tag this CSD G5 but will leave that up to you

Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, did so. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Removing PA's [23] is fine (unless you're me, of course) but conventionally you should replace them with [PA redacted - sig] or somesuch to make it clear that the text has been modified William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose - done it now. I didn't bother because the entirely unnecessary attacks lifted out so neatly, leaving a reasonable-sounding post that left the primary subject of discussion much clearer (and the redaction notices are distracting and leave people wondering). Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:

I think this was asking about making it mandatory/default. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way, and the user's response on their talk page didn't suggest it. Rd232 ^talk 08:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 211.138.124.252 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. And you are? Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't found it, it's here and without merit. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - we crossed paths, I already replied there. Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin American template update

Hello Rd232! I was wondering if you could update the Template:WikiProject Latin America to include the music task force. I've been trying it myself but with no success. I would greatly appreciate the help. Magiciandude (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Template works now, but the relevant categories need sorting out. Compare with another taskforce to check the structure (I may have made a mess of the start I just made, and I've got to go). Rd232 ^talk 17:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have another request. A good of friend has made a portal for the Latin music which is Portal:Latin America music. If it's not too much to ask, could you add the portal to the Template:WikiProject Latin America please? It would be something similar to Template:WikiProject Canada for the music portal there. Magiciandude (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ....Would just like to add that all the Latin portals could be added...as this gives the same and equal opportunity for all portals to been seen and thus advertise there sub projects...Moxy (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, except the portals for the first five hooks (Argentina - Colombia) aren't showing up. The place to follow that up would be Template talk:WPBannerMeta (the basic template which the Latin America template uses). I may have done something wrong, or maybe there's an error. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The taskforce hook provides various additional options (such as portal links) which the native 5 do not support. This is to keep the code simpler and more efficient for the majority of uses. If you wish to add portals to those 5, you can either rearrange them into a hook or add {{Portal/taskforce}} to the TF_TEXT parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and suggestion... but I don't feel up to acting on the latter, I feel I'd probably just mess it up. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done You weren't using the TF_TEXT parameter, so I've just rearraned them. Umm, Portal:Bolivia is currently red. 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Splendid, thank you. I've removed the Bolivia portal ref. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Jean Bosco massacre

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

your actions

Seem a bit petty and revengeful, I think you would better step back from any actions at all in the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely unfair and WP:ABF. All the articles were left in a processual limbo, and ought to have a proper community discussion. I expect Sargeant to be kept; Sorian I worked on myself to add the non-appointment details (see the article history); and Hagen I feel is non-notable and the cut-short AFD didn't properly account for naming issues. Bottom line: I'm an admin, it's not called "having a mop" for nothing, I'm cleaning up. Frankly, how dare you accuse me of such a thing?. Apart from anything else, these are all BLPs and you and I are both BLP hawkish. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see, who deleted this article Winslow_Sargeant in the middle of an AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was you wasn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It really wasn't. I can't easily tell who it was, but I can see User:Ucucha restored a bunch of the G5-tagged FSN articles. I rescued a couple I thought worth keeping and tagged a couple I thought junk, and deleted a couple. my delete log. Rd232 ^talk 16:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And since you evidently have an ABF bee in your bonnet here, the recent deletions are Caroline Smith Dewaal (merely a failed nominee for a minor federal post, I can userfy if you're really keen) and two redirects to deleted pages. (The others aren't FSN creations.) Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Winslow_Sargeant Could you tell me who it was then please ? Personally I am not much bothered, but I do think you would be better backing off, especially in anything that involves administrative actions as you are very clearly involved. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to back off and go find a cup of WP:TEA, bro. Click a page's history tab, then the "view logs..." link. Via that, one sees that Fastily deleted it, and rightly so IMO. Now these borderline BLPs will have to head to AfD again because of this ridiculousness. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"view logs"... how long has that been there?! I've never noticed that shortcut (not that I need a page's logs that often, but I've always gone the long way round). Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tarc just answered the who (after I went and checked and got edit-conflicted). You'll see from Fastily's logs that he/she does lot of deletion work. As for your suggestion: thank you, but if I see any more cleanup, I'll do what's necessary. If it helps, I don't normally CSD things directly (unless it's vandalism or totally straightforward, like WP:CSD#G8), tagging instead. A second opinion is helpful in cases where there's any judgement call. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

...besides which, "petty and revengeful"... clearly you don't know me at all. Rd232 ^talk 18:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brito

I am sorry for reverting you here, but your version overrode my version with more info. I already tried to incorporate your previous corrections; can I ask you to add your new ones to the latest version? I am done editing the article now. Thank you for your help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

respectfully disagree per WP:BTW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

equally respectfully, there's a reason WP:Build the Web doesn't exist any more. By current conventions, you're clearly overlinking in terms of what you did in that article. Rd232 ^talk 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

no hard feelings if you want to delink anything, just don't erase the added information/categories and such. Thanks :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

HFT is not front running.

I would be happy to discuss this with you further if you'd like.

The short version is that front running is illegal and if HFT firms were front running they would be prosecuted accordingly.

Several HFT firms as well as major banks that own HFT firms have opened their operations up completely to the SEC to show there is nothing illegal going on. They have been open for quite some time now.

The SEC essentially said their activity was "not new". The only thing differentiating them from traditional market makers and traders is they are faster AKA high frequency.

Financestudent (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said HFT was front running (nor do I know anyone who has). But according to some sources, worth reporting, some combination of some HFT hardware/software and certain HFT-friendly exchanges enables flash trading in which some HFT traders could effectively see others' orders. Rd232 ^talk 07:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to create a criticism section and put that there that would be great. As far as I can tell the practice is limited to one exchange Direct Edge but it should be discussed, just not in the first paragraph. The majority of HFT firms, and the majority of exchanges do not participate in flash orders though and that should be clear in the article. Financestudent (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have more interest than I do - feel free to move it about and clarify. I just think it should be in the article somewhere. Note though that "criticism" sections are deprecated. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I have time. It is not insider trading either (front running isn't inside trading) even the articles against it don't make that allegation, but I'll move it around, clarify, and make a controversy section or something when I have time. Financestudent (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Check your e-mail

Hello, Rd232. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

/* Deep Thoughts */

I don't think that user is here to contributer constructively to any article and looks to be heading down a one way street. Thanks for trying to point him in the right direction, lets see how he goes forward. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He does appear to be heading a certain way. I get the feeling he genuinely doesn't understand the problem. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your professional help is needed!

Hey Rd, I just added a footnote (the only one, haha) to Gustav Freytag. Will you do me a favor and look at the article from Im Neuen Reich and tell me if I read that awful blackletter correctly? The guy's name gives me a headache. Vielen Dank! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it correct as "Nitsch", which does appear in that form on the contents page [24]. But the name appears on the title page as "Niytch" (or even "Riytch" - would be my guess there without context but that's even further off); they can't both be right and it's surely the former. Isn't this the Friedrich Nietzsche, in a variant spelling? Timing fits, and he published a letter aimed at the editor 2 years earlier [25]. Rd232 ^talk 07:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding. I have to look into that. I corrected it last night after I found this. Thanks--I guess I'm going to find me a complete bibliography of the sacred one! Drmies (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for National Commission on Police Reform

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Freakshownerd Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Movimiento 2D

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Luis Beltrán Prieto Figueroa

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring policy discussion

I appreciated your thoughts in the "What's a revert?" thread I started at AN yesterday. It often takes kicking an idea around with others, and hearing what they have to say about the topic, before I can get to the question I really need to ask. So the discussion was really helpful to me, and I've been able to say at AN what I was asking there much more concisely:

Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?

If you have the time and inclination, I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind weighing in again at AN, on this more specific question. Sorry it took me so long to be able to formulate the question clearly and state it concisely. I'm not trying to shape the outcome by asking particular admins, btw. I'm making this same request to all admins who contributed. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I added examples of BLP concerns to the Climate change case Proposed decision talk page. You were mentioned several times so wanted to alert you of my comments. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Frederick Seitz

Hello, you have broken WP:3RR on your latest set of edits to the Seitz article. Please self revert. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't - I didn't revert ArthurRubin's 16.37 edit. Rd232 ^talk 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Read the policy. Multiple edits do not count as a revert only if unbroken by another user's edit. The mere fact that you didn't specfically revert the intervening edit doesn't mean your following edits are not still counted as becoming a new series.

Edit: See the specific policy: "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

Look, I have, on occasion, dealt with WP:AN3 backlogs. I was also responsible for merging WP:3RR into WP:EW - so do me a favour and assume I know and understand the policy. Report me if you think you're right and can't let it go. (I've never reported anyone if they disagreed about 3RR breach and it was arguable - it's really not constructive.) Rd232 ^talk 06:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this when popping in for something else. I don't intend to report you of course, but the last time someone reported me, two admins on the 3RR NB made it painfully clear that any intervening edit restarted the count, whether or not that edit conflicted with you in any way, or whether you had reverted their specific edit or not. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE: I didn't revert Rubin. And BTW this focus on rules rather than behaviour (intent) is entirely contrary to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rd232 ^talk 12:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversions is a behavioral problem, not simply a technical rules violation. BTW, I agreed with you on the separate section on O'Donnell. It was originally in a section entitled "Controversial Statements", but all the other statements wound up being stolen from it. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Repeated reversions is a behavioral problem" - not per se. "Revert" has too broad a meaning for that declaration to stand unqualified: editors can be trying to reach compromise or make points via edit summary, this is not necessarily edit warring. (Not to speak of 3RR exemptions of course.) Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Urban Land Committees

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Land titling

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation style

Do you see what's happening to your citation style? Everyone adds cite templates-- it's unavoidable! And your preference for citing the publisher before the title isn't respected or followed by anyone, and doesn't match cite templates. Most editors understand the cite templates and use them by default (unfortunately). Now we have a mish-mash. Arrrrgh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't care - I'm intensely relaxed about having a "mishmash". As long as each reference is fine - whatever. People do what they're used to, and whilst I wish they wouldn't use cite templates, because it makes the wikitext bigger and harder to read, especially for newbies... well that's how it is. Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Rd232. Just wanted to let you know I've e-mailed you about a sensitive matter you'd expressed concern over previously.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments, and edit conflicts,

Please be more careful in the future. No offense, but I would expect an admin to check if any edit-conflicts they experience delete others' comments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean "check"? The software checks for edit conflicts, as I'm sure you know. The loss of the previous edit following an edit conflict would happen if you copy and paste all of "your revision" into the "stored revision" box (sometimes it's easier to do that and then fix lost edits), but I didn't do that here. Software glitch, I think. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Hope they fix that then, along with my own little glitch on my userpage.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doncram/Blueboar

Thanks for the review. I have no problem with the early unblock in both cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks for letting me know. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests on articles with redirected talk pages.

I ran into a problem on 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series when I went to service the edit request. The talk page there is redirected to another talk page but the edit request logic puts the request there anyway. It isn't visible, due to the redirect, except that the category is displayed at the bottom of the page. Is there a way to deal with this when we insert the request? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really - the edit request mechanism has no clue about the contents of the destination page. In theory a Javascript could check that the destination isn't a redirect, but I can't see that happening. As long as the category appears, it's not all that bad, since users handling the requests can move them to the right place. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests

I've listed the category for renaming in a full CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 16#Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation style discussion at ANI

I mentioned you here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP3K

• Why did you add the WP3K template atop the wikiproject? Redundantly redundant. • Ling.Nut 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

it's just an example of what it looks like. Rd232 ^talk 07:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap and drivel

'Terms like "crap" and "drivel" are not necessary and you never know when they may give offense.' -- um, how about always? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't always give offense - it depends on the person, and on the context of the personal interactions and relationship if any. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted, there are a fair number of people here I wouldn't be offended to hear that from -- but when directed to users with 7 edits total, a reasonable editor would assume it was intended to be offensive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary - concerning content created by a user with few edits, I would assume the commenter had no interest in offending the content creator, and was merely bluntly expressing his opinion of the content. Rd232 ^talk 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BITE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't say it was good. But you brought up a supposed intention to be offensive. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your last comment because the discussion had been closed, and I feared if it was left, people would keep it going (I did not close the discussion myself). If you want to reinsert it within the discussion box, whatever.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or reopen the discussion, natch -- granted, I probably wasn't the best one to close it, but the TT issue was pretty well resolved, and RP's summary was too good to pass up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My signature

Thanks for the info. It works fine in Opera, Firefox and IE. :) ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Two months late

I am so sorry! Sometimes I completely forget which threads I'm editing. I just replied about citations on WP, finally. Awickert (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory and Terra Novus at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Needless to say

... I never made it over to the coup article, and it looks like we'll all be in fire-fighting mode for a while now. You're doing great work. No need to respond-- my talk is too damn clogged anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks :) you too. I may just nominate the coup article for GA at some point this week this then, and see what happens. Rd232 ^talk 20:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at it since I can't remember when -- but the last time I looked, there was all kinds of missing info. Maybe things will settle down in a few days ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You Missed A Revision!

You may need to revdel the revision dated 06:58, 2 November 2010 at User talk:Grayshi as the revdelled stuff is still visible. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 290° 41' 15" NET 19:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Done. Rd232 ^talk 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Another editor has started a thread at ANI about your block of this editor. I have to say, 31 hours looks inadequate for racist edits like these. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Not reasonable to let this user edit again. DuncanHill (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please strike out your bad faith comments at WT:GAN

To quote you: "If you're suddenly keen on improving GA, go propose something there, and drop a link here. Thanks." After I followed your suggestion, you post to WT:GAN, to state that my following your suggestion is somehow, "good exercise for my AGF muscle" I find this duplicitous commenting about me to be impolite, rude, and extremely bad faith in nature. Not to mention the fact that I personally do indeed strive for my own practice to review at least one GA candidate for every one I nominated at WP:GAN, and I think that the proposal at WT:GAN does have merit and at the very least - warranted the discussion it has received. Extremely disappointed in your hypocritical behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry it came off that badly to you; I've tried to explain at the relevant page. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please change your responses when users actually follow suggestions you have given them. Please do not then go turn around and criticize those users for following your suggestions. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact you did not follow my request to drop a link into the DYK discussion, or otherwise notify me. Perhaps you'd like to stop and think how it looks when you go off and effectively present a version of my idea behind my back in a form that I would expect to fail (indeed I would have to oppose it myself in that form, it's that bad). Rd232 ^talk 11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, not notifying was an oversight of mine and a mistake, I did indeed forget to do that. Perhaps we should both take care to adjust our respective behavior patterns in the future, and our comments. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry the remark upset you, that was not intentional and as I said I wasn't accusing you of bad faith. If you wish, I'm quite happy to delete all of the exchanges about this (including your section at that page). You can also delete the relevant remark of mine if you wish; talking about this is not going to achieve anything, and we may as well sweep this incident under the carpet. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Thank you for stating you were not intending to accuse me of bad faith. Please be mindful of the impact of your comments in the future - especially after users make good faith attempts to implement your own direct suggestions to them. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not modify other users' comments on Wikipedia process discussion pages

• Please do not modify other users' comments on Wikipedia process discussion pages, as you have done, here [26], in a comment that was still within mine and before my timestamped signature. Please post below posts of other users', and in the future do not modify their posts, especially on pages discussing changes to Wikipedia processes. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it was part of my AGF that you had made a glaring error, and therefore took that unusual step in order to reduce the consequences of it. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not edit other users' comments in the future. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd, it appears this post was somehow removed. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't edit it. I interpolated a comment, for reasons given just above, including noting that this is unusual and why I did it. Either accept that with good grace, or clarify whether you really did intend the proposal to take this form, in which case, please explain also how you could think that transmogrifying the DYK idea (experienced contributors reviewing) to GA in a form where everybody must review with each nomination makes any kind of sense. Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You should have indented a new comment of your own, below mine. Please take care to do that in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not enough visibility to affect the discussion (there's always a TLDR point where people read just the opening statement and then !vote - see my comments at the page on this process). Do you not understand that I was trying to fix what I thought had to be an error of yours? Insisting that it wasn't an error without clarifying why it wasn't isn't really helpful. And, you know, I felt I had a certain right to intervene because it was my idea which you were presenting in such a poor form. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It is never acceptable to edit other users' comments in the way you did, unless removing a blatant WP:BLP violation or violation of WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Interpolation is not the same as editing. The alternative was to hat the whole thing and start the discussion again (which probably would have been better). Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you're not really supposed to use section titles in the way you did either. I've hatted the section. The End, I guess. Rd232 ^talk 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You "interpolated" via an edit inside of my comments, before my signature. It made it seem as if they were my comments. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you deleted my comment (huh, clearly worse than interpolation...), but it's right there in the history that my interpolation was in square brackets and with my signature, so let's not get our memories in a twist. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, it was indeed confusing for me and most likely for other readers as well. Please, do not do this odd "interpolating" practice in the future. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a highly unusual situation. BTW, I'm glad you thought better of this initial hat. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And I see you saw cause to unhat it anyways. -- Cirt (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unhat

As you are unhatting comments, apparently you do not want the discussion to end. Okay, to be fair and apply the same to both, I have unhatted the other subsection. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OFFS. You asked me to strike the comment, and I did. You accused my of hypocrisy earlier (in complete error), perhaps you can explain this?? Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the strikeout. My apologies. And thank you for doing so. Thank you very much. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Please restore the other hat. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I sincerely hope that in the future you will be able to think a bit more before posting, and strive to assume better faith of your fellow editors, especially after they have made a good faith attempt to follow your own suggestions to them. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, I sincerely hope that after being assured repeatedly that good faith was being assumed, you will believe it. See also WP:AAGF. Rd232 ^talk 12:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is a two-way street. Hopefully we will both modify our assumptions in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the strikeout [27]. Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge 4 US related projects with Wikipedia:WikiProject United States

It has been suggested that 4 US related project be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject United States due to a long state of inactivity. I noticed that you had made some edits to at least one of them recently so I thought you might want to voice your opinion about the merger. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Close out some Inactive/nonfunctional US related WikiProjects. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)