User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A belated thank-you

For welcoming me to Wikipedia when I first joined. Banks Irk (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bahai is one of the largest minority religion in Iran

Hello, I'm PersianStudies. Your recent edit to the page Religion in Iran appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianStudies (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, read the source. Baha'i is the largest non-Muslim religion in Iran. You should stop changing it to minimize that fact and, if you don't believe the sources, discuss it on talk pages.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What is your source? I could not find any reliable source on the number of Bahai in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianStudies (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Right here. I left it for you on your talk page and added it to the articles you edited. It states explicitly that Baha'is are the largest religious minority in Iran, not "one of the," as you keep changing articles to say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not what I said. As It was told many times buy many experts on Iran, we cannot deny the fact that in the absence of proper statistics, we can only consider them as one of the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran. Otherwise we denied the right of all Christians in Iran who historically have been the largest religious minority in Iran and the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianStudies (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. The UN has no problem stating explicitly that they are the largest religious minority in Iran. I don't know about the rest of the Middle East, but I'm sure you're right that, outside of Iran, Christians are the largest. It's not the point here, though. If you find sources that say that about Christians in Iran you can change it, but in the absence of sources for the one claim, the claim which does have sources will prevail.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Here, the US Department of State agrees, stating that "The largest non-Muslim minority is the Baha'is, who number 300,000 to 350,000."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

That article never should have been written to begin with. Sorry if discussion got heated. Be well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC) You too. I'm sorry as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Benton Academy

It seems odd that you should warn me for reverting an edit then proceed to do exactly the same. I was attempting to work out how to revert the second edit but wanted to see whether the reference was legit. It made very interesting/disturbing reading. 46.240.241.69 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. There is so much random nonsense put in by IP editors and it really looked like you were taking it back to a more damaged version. I'll remove the warning on your talk page and apologize to you again there. I hope my overzealousness won't discourage you from hanging around.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Glad you figured out how to fix the mess. At least I got to read that article.
Private Academies Keep Students Separate and Unequal 40 years Later
46.240.241.69 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Biloxi Wade-Ins

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 380. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I shortened it. I misread the instructions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring on White Privilege

Hi Alf, there was a long discussion earlier on the White Privilege page about how strongly the introduction should be phrased. The question was, essentially, whether the article should explain the concept and make no certain statements about its validity, or whether the article should state the concept as fact. After a long and drawn-out back-and-forth, the article retained a neutral phrasing for about a year. Recently, this neutral phrasing was replaced with a declaratory tone, which I now see you are guarding. The article should take a similar tone to that used in other pages describing concepts in the social sciences. That is, it should describe the concept clearly and concisely in the introductory paragraph, without making judgements on the validity of the concept. A partisan tone does a disservice to the article, because it alerts readers immediately that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. If you object to the phrasing, "are argued to," we can discuss a better phrasing. But I urge you to recognize that there is a problem with the way the article is currently written, and to work constructively with other editors to address it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring? Be serious. Why don't you engage on the talk page of the article instead of here? I've made one revert, which was of your edit, that wasn't countering vandalism and you come here with a pseudo-warning? There's an extensive conversation on the talk page which you have ignored. I won't answer your misrepresentations here, but rather only there. BRD, friend, BRD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Biloxi Wade-Ins

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we on the same page here, or not?

Hi Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, I can't tell if you and I are on the same page or not here. It seems like you picked up on my response to the IP editor and responded to portions of what I said defensively, then criticized the IP. I guess maybe I could have said "two editors who aren't sure what alternative phrasing you'd prefer"? I don't have a perspective on the dispute (I know zero about the situation/campaign/whatever,) I was attempting to facilitate suggestions for how to fix the language if it is in dispute, instead of criticizing the existing language and walking away without improving the article. Hope we didn't get our wires crossed. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm happy with the wording as it is and was asking for suggestions for alternatives to get something concrete to criticize. Perhaps I should have made two separate, differently indented comments. My feeling is that the language is fine the way it is. I'm sorry to have come off as defensive.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AN

Hi,

Re. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Grade_X

Hopefully, the replies have explained why AN/I can't really help at this stage, and why you should use other pages.

If that's OK, please say so on the AN/I thread so that the thread can be closed, leaving AN/I more free for things it can deal with.

Thanks, 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Query regarding comment deletion.

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Not trying to be contentious, but just out of curiosity how is my statement factually incorrect? I'm interested to know where, other than European or other extant 'Western Countries' (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, etc. usually with a white majority (except S.A)), white Supremacy exists?

First of all, SA and Zimbabwe are enough to make it factually incorrect. Second, it really needs a source. You stuck it in front of a footnote, making it seem as if the source supports it, which it actually doesn't. If it's true in its qualified form (i.e. excluding SA, Zimbabwe, and, for all I know, any number of other former colonies) you really need a source which says so explicitly. I'm going to copy this to the article talk page because that's a better place for the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian GabrielF (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to put that together. What an ongepotchket piece of work that article is, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbook (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2014

IMPROVE DO NOT REVERT

Reverting first is not wikipedia policy.

I have a horrible physical disability and frnakly it is diffuclt to type anything at all.

THE FIRST PRINCIPLKE OF WIKI IS TO IMPROVE NOT TO DELETE NOT TO REVERT.

BUT EVERYDAY THE FIRST THING PEOPLE ENCOUNTER AT WIKI IS NOT DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE ON HOW TO IMPROVE, NOR IMPROVEMENTS, BUT ARROGANT PEOPLE WHO REVERT FIRST.

I don't think you realize or understand the damage you do to wiki and to people by YOUR PERSONAL POLICY of revert first.

184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD GIVE TIME BEFORE YOU REVERT

Seriously, I cannot express much beyond hate and contempt for you at this moment.

A page is proposed for deletion.

SO I TRY TO IMPROVE IT.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, YOU DELETE MY EFFORTS AS OPPOSED TO GIVING ME TIME TO COMPLETE THEM AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO.

If WIKI had any sense of decency, it is YOUR KIND OF REVERTS that would be labeled abuse and vandalism.

Who is the better WIKIPEDIAN.

THE POOR SCHMUCK WHO TRIES TO IMPROVE A PAGE, OR THE ARROGANT EDITOR THAT SWIFTLY DELETES WITHOUT FIRST, FIRST, FIRST PROVIDING HELP? 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Los Angeles. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Driscoll's

While I disagree that the nutrient content of the berries is relevant to what they do, i have instead placed that information in the sections on those berries (Blueberry, etc.). I was just about to linnk those terms in the Driscoll section when you beat me to it.

I'll check with others to see if it is appropriate to place in Driscoll's as well. I believe it is. Technically, it should be in every berry producer, but I can't fix every article, just some as I see fit. Youngnoah (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Youngnoah

You have a really interesting editing history, friend. Why don't you start an RfC about it on the Driscoll's page? Or just wait for comments? What's the hurry, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a promotional account to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it, though?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have filed a dispute resolution request. You may view it here. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning Who is a Jew

WP:BRD is very specific about not restoring reverted edits before you establish consensus. The burden to prove consensus is upon you. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, stop with the wikilawyering. One editor made a Bold edit. You reverted it. Then you should have discussed. You did not. Don't pick nits with me, friend, just talk about the material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"You are warned."??? You're warning me in edit summaries? What is up with you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

John Calvin's view of Scripture

What do you think of these edits? I couldn't help think that it sniffed of meatpuppetry. StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think much of them. It's some kind of puppetry. I believe it's taken care of for now, anyway; see notes on your talk page. I hope you like some of the editing I've done on the article. It's an interesting subject.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Eastside

I agree with you to clean up the Eastside article to be just those neighborhoods East of Downtown LA. However, the information about the Silver Lake Neighborhood council their vote should be included in the article because its relevant. Could you bring it back somehow? Thanks. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a short section at the end of the article. I'll get around to it soon or you can do it, but the important thing is to avoid both recentism and undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your RfA vote is malformatted

Hi. Your vote at Piotrus's RfA resets the numbering and I can't figure out how to fix it while retaining your layout. Could you fix it please? --Stfg (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't fix it when I voted without deleting the quote. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, everyone! I'd file a bug report but (a) I'm too lazy and (b) there is no (b)...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

malformed links?

Hi, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Randall&diff=594942363&oldid=594941489 what was malformed in my edit? Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

hi again, can you please also reply to my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Randell - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be edit warring. Please discuss your changes before deciding to revert. --Precision123 (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be violating the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Making bold, small, uncontroversial changes to possibly improve an article is not edit warring. If you had a problem with it, you should not revert. WP:Revert only when necessary: "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit...." If an editor like myself is trying to aim towards a logical compromise by including the elements you like (e.g., "conclude") and by incorporating the actual words of the text in the conclusion, that is a reasonable edit. You should not revert that. You should address it in talk. Considering you chose not to cooperate in the dispute resolution process (DR noticeboard), reverting a bold edit or improvement without any discussion is probably not the best idea. --Precision123 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on that matter. I will certainly take it under consideration.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. (Also, the poem was a nice touch, too :) ). What doesn't kill me... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd say "better luck next time," but it seems weirdly dischordant. I'm not sure what to say. This place is sometimes beyond description.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Bird

Per your last comment on the Walk of Fame talk page, I agree that your question was a legitimate one, and you didn't embarrass yourself at all. My comment was directed at the nasty responses posted by Christine (who did embarrass herself, though she is doubtless unaware of it), not at you. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so sorry for misunderstanding, and thank you for clarifying. You gotta love this place, eh? There's nothing like it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits ANI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

disruptive edits and vandalism on Jimmy Henchman page

I have reverted the edits to reflect the closest version to the discussion litigated and commented on with Dennis Brown and the entire WP community. Please do not vandalize this again. The information you're including is inaccurate and misleading. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Litigated"? Are you kidding? And you accuse me of vandalism and disruption? Vandalism? You've got a hard row to hoe ahead of you with that kind of attitude. Why don't you just engage on the article talk page like a human being instead of dropping dire and generic warnings hither and yon?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes revisions to own, without justification.

Why do you continue to edit pages back to your revisions without comment when the revisions were fully documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.83.254 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mullins

Hi Alf, a few days ago I picked up a newish book (2010) of Pound criticism essays. At least one has more info about Mullins than I've noticed in some of the other sources I have. I'm sort of dug in at the moment with Pound, but when I get to it, will extract what I can about Mullins. Would it be best to plop directly into the article or onto the talk page? Victoria (tk) 01:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, interesting! I'd go straight for the article if you're up for it; things seem to have settled down over there for now. I have a new source (new to me, anyway) with a lot of stuff on Mullins too. That article is really shaping up! Thanks,— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is coming along and has settled there! I might drop something in this weekend if I get to it, otherwise late next week. Victoria (tk) 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Glendale, California#Notable people

I noticed you reverted the Game Grumps edit because Arin and Dan don't have their own pages ("then on the page they go!"). Is this just because Dan doesn't have his own article, because Arin and the webshow both have pages.

>> Arin Hanson

--Matthew (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I saw the pipe and didn't realize it was his pseudonym. As for Dan, it's better to wait till he has his own article. I'll fix it, obviously I should have checked both of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

False accusation

I suggest you get off your high horse and do a bit of fact-checking yourself before you make a false accusation of "conspiracy" against a fellow wikipedian. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in guessing that you're unfamiliar with the rules on Rfcs and don't know that it's necessary to have two editors involved before you can raise one. Perhaps you would have been happy to use someone else's name without first notifyinng them, but I consider it a basic courtesy. Deb (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of conspiracy, I noted, with a diff, that you and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi are co-conspirators. I know all about RfCs, and exactly what the two of you were up to. As for the rest of your nonsense, including "giving me the benefit of the doubt," I don't know what you're talking about and I don't suppose I want to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears that up then. It was a false accusation made with full knowledge of the circumstances. Just be aware that an abusive, confrontational attitude will get you nowhere on this project. You will find it more than outweighs any positive contribution you may make. Deb (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You accusing me of having a confrontational attitude? That's hilarious. Bye.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, that co-conspirators may conspire but not in a conspiracy. I think that given the rudeness you demonstrated on her page, she has been remarkably lenient towards you. As you say... Goodbye. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:30, 17 February 2014‎ (UTC)

The meaning of username and sig/ UK comedy films

Private Widdle

Thanks for your input on the rfc. The film im question Carry_On..._Up_the_Khyber is extremely well known in the UK, Ireland and many commonwealth countries. If you type the phrase 'carry on' into wikipedia search, its the third item that appears after two on the film's wider franchise.

There are few people in Britain who don't understand the reference (as is evidenced by the post on my talk page where one of the complainants links to it themselves)

Thankfully guilt by accusation went out with the witch hunts. I now find that because I won't be bullied into submission over my position on the notability of BeerXML, that I am now faced with demands to change my username, my sig and have been threatened with having my account put up for suspension and now have been libelled as a sexist.

I will not be bullied by these two individuals. Unfortunately, by commenting on their rfc and not supporting them, you can now expect to attract their attention.

I'm not asking you to change anything you have written, but I want to assure you that this accusation of sexism is simply defamation. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that that's what you mean by it, and I'm also sure you don't intend offense, but on the other hand, I can see how people might take offense, and it's good form to change one's sig if people are offended by it, whether offense is intended or not. I just don't know enough about it to know if that's what's happening here, so I can't take a position on it at all. But even if your signature were blatantly and obviously offensive, it's no excuse for the way you've been treated.

I may attract their attention, sure, but I edit articles about Israel and Palestine. I'm used to attention, and not in a good way! Cheers, and that BeerXML article is shaping up nicely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Wade Walton

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Silver lake not Eastside

It seems that people with random IP's are going to keep trying to add Silver lake as Eastside. We should probably put a section on the main article page re: Silverlake not eastside vote by the NC. Also, I don't know how to do it, but maybe there is a way to semi-lock this article so that it requires a username to edit? --Daniel E Romero (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the NC vote is worth a whole section. The LAT gave it one sentence in a whole article. It's actually kind of a local joke. If you want to try to make it so that IPs can't edit the article, you can ask at WP:RPP for "semi-protection" (the technical name of what you're thinking of) but they almost certainly won't do it unless there are days of sustained addition and reversion of the same material by IP editors. Personally I think it'll die down soon. It's also possible to put hidden text in the article that is only visible when an edit window is opened.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Slavery in Iran

What Hoary (is clear that is an anti-Iranian) has written about Slavery in Iran is nonsense words. The previous version of Slavery in Iran is correct version. So I have not removed the materials of the page. Just I returned the correct version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1241edit (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, look, I don't know what Hoary's motives are, but you're right that that material is inappropriate for the article. I started a section on the talk page to discuss it. If someone puts it back in, please talk about it on the talk page before reverting them or you're going to get blocked for edit-warring. I'd hate to see that happen over this material because I think you're right, but being right is not an excuse for edit-warring, OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I missed this one

I was away from my computer long enough to miss the whole business. Was this one of the homophobic ones, one of the antisemitic ones (read: the ones who think that all Jews must be racist and therefore I can't be Jewish), or one of the misogynistic ones? :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Something about Muslims; I can't remember now if you like them too much or not enough, but that was the general topic, with some unimaginative misogyny thrown in for seasoning. They came after me next.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry to hear that. I get a lot of harassers and I hope you're not regretting the productive edits you've made due to now being caught up in it all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all! I get a few on my own account too, you know, so one or two extras is no big deal. After all, if they don't come after us when we edit in certain areas, we're probably not doing it right....— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

These little towns have such interesting stories. You're a well-respected editor and your appreciation means a lot. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U for Scholarlyarticles?

Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think your account is accurate. I don't quite understand what the RfC/U process is meant to accomplish, but I can certainly attest to everything you've written there and would certify if you should initiate it. The weirdness around here has no bottom.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an alternative to asking for a good-faith but problematic editor to be blocked or banned. Hopefully the editor in question would change their behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't actually say anything I'm thinking about the chances of that, so I'll just say "OK."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Russell Hantz et al

You don't have to warn sockpuppets of banned editors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Is there some quick way to draw the attention of administrators to them that I should use instead?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This particular case is being dealt with at SPI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Move

Can you please help me understand the reasoning behind reverting the name change back to the "Anna Pou case"? This was a large investigation that had many aspects and "characters." Why single out one person and name the page after a person? No one had worked on the page since 2009. The page focused on Anna Pou's involvement. The document she is citing is only filed about a grand jury returns a "true bill." This document should have never been drafted until after a "true bill" was returned. The document is not even signed. Furthermore, grand jury proceeding are confidential. If confidential documents are cited and information is cited from users that have knowledge in regarding a matter that was sealed by the court and/or confidential, the end result will be similar to the nola dot com blog postings. There were many "characters" but the article focused on Anna Pou. The user who made the request has only edited and participated in the article about herself and the she is requesting to be reverted. If she wants the page reverted back and deletes edits she feels are not in her favor, it is not worth spending time doing the research to work on the article. Thanks. I appreciate any guidance you are able to offer. I would like to understand the reasoning. Schwartzenberg (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not keep the conversation on the article talk page where it belongs? In fact, I'll move this there and then respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you could

take a look at Talk:Invasion of Banu Qurayza? This might not interest you of course, so no problem if you don't want to. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)‎

I can definitely agree to look at it to see if I want to take a look at it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I need a good trouting for not even looking at that. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It happens to everyone. This is quite a labyrinth we're working in here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good one!

As a lurker on B's talk page I backtracked and found 'Even mentioning the guy is giving his thought undue weight': good one! - Neonorange (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Might I ask that you refrain

From working on articles I've worked on or using their talk page's until you, Red, NeilN and the other user are done with your discussion about ways of possibly getting me blocked? Thank you.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can certainly ask, but I will ignore you. You don't own the articles, as you're so fond of reminding me that I don't either. Why don't you engage about content on article talk pages like everyone else?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U created

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles is awaiting certification by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have slightly messed up. I think we have to certify by signing instead of just adding our user names. This is my first time through the process in ~8 years so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. I guess we'll see what happens...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at a couple past RfCs and the directions stayed in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheng

I think I've finally solved the mystery! See talk. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work! I wondered why some of the newspapers called her "Young Victorian" and others called her "Victorian Young Australian." So many awards down there!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Concordia

Hey, Alf ... Can you enlighten us as to the problem with Concordia University Irvine updating and enhancing our entry with authorized and accurate information??? We have an incomplete entry, we are trying to bring it up to speed, and you just deleted some new information on a whim. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.229.189 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No whim; the section is "notable faculty." That usually means notable enough to have a wikipedia article, not just locally considered notable at the institution. Also, when notables do have an article it's usually enough to just summarize what they're known for and let the reader get the details in the article. This:

the most successful female beach volleyball player of all time when she retired in 2012, with 112 individual championship wins in domestic and international :::competition. Misty May is a current Masters in Coaching student at Concordia University Irvine

is just way too much detail and contains way too many "peacock terms" for a "notable people" kind of section. I'm going to move this to the article talk page so others can weigh in. So you work for the school?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Alf, I work for the university and was tasked with adding the information you so summarily tossed out without even the courtesy of a notification or rationale. So forgive if I sound a little peeved.

Just so we at Concordia don't invest a lot more time creating content you are simply going to delete without warning, can you enlighten us as to what we are and are not allowed to add? Your opinions seem so very subjective, and I'm wondering what prevents me from just going around deleting stuff from the articles of others in the same way you have... it's a godlike position you've assumed.

So... why don't we start with your telling us who qualifies as "notable" enough to merit a separate article? Do we just create an article about the person and hold our collective breaths hoping somebody like you doesn't pass judgment and wipe it out? We'd rather not waste our valuable time if our efforts on Wikipedia ultimately will be made futile by some editor's personal opinion. Give us some direction here. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.229.189 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 February 2014‎

I'm going to move this to the article talk page and answer there because others might be interested.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf, I don't know what a talk page is, so please direct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.229.189 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Concordia University (California). Also, after you write something on a talk page, including this one, if you end with ~~~~ it will sign and datestamp your message, which is helpful for everyone.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

With the recent controversey on the talk page along with the time since it's first review I thought it necessaey to put Anjem Choudary up for a reassessment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Muneer Awad

Hello! Your submission of Muneer Awad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! — Maile (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Lent

Thanks for that, but it seems like there's more trouble - LimosaCorel and 2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E are the same user and LimosaCorel, who is editing on behalf of the SSPX (which is banned by the Catholic Church), reintroduced the edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lent&diff=598057862&oldid=598057666 His version, which he restored, removes a source, and misrepresents the one he added. Please take care of that if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much. I'll look into it and work on it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that! It looks like there is a discussion already opened here, have at it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_edit_war_and_possible_socking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I put it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel. I'll go look at the ANI thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - hopefully the bias that was introduced by that ultra-conservative editor can be removed after this is sorted out. Lent starts on Wednesday so it's probably a good idea for the article to be accurate by that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did make my case on the talk page

Ken never replied, he just reverts to a picture that looks NOTHING like that range, a range I see every day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2014‎

So what? You're still past 3 reverts. Being right doesn't justify edit-warring.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad that I cold make your day--WPPilot (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty is not a WP:LEADIMAGE qualifying factor, the requirements are clear and I tried my best to have communication with this user. It does not snow on that range, so how on earth could the picture showing the rare snow from 6years ago provide a unbiased perspective of that range?WPPilot 07:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)(talk)

Belfort book dates

You can call it spam but you've also now removed the only publication-date-reference for the books; which was the reason for my edits in the first place. Don't you think my solution was better than nothing on second thought? I thought it looked better to have a date here, couldn't without a reference. Do you really think Amazon's wrong? Swliv (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You put a link to Amazon solely for the purpose of establishing the publication date of the book? That's overkill. They get the date from the publisher same as everyone else. Why not just use worldcat? The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You could have saved me a good deal of angst by coming back to this page or otherwise notifying me after you posted this next to the Belfort article:

15:09, 1 March 2014 Undid revision by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I was wrong, we should list his books.

You're doing a lot. Take care. Less prolific editors are also, probably, acting in good faith in our constructive, collegial enterprise. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I'll remember next time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. (Was just wondering back re: 15:08, 1 March 2014.) Swliv (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you take that sarcastically? I really didn't mean it to be. It was a sincere apology.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes I did [17:56 and suspected it but did not address it on 3 March; bad habit, maybe]. Sorry. Good faith. Onward. Swliv (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, see you in the trenches!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Muneer Awad

I'd like to thank you for supporting the DYK project. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion

LimosaCorel, who was blocked today for sockpuppeting, is evading his block by editing from a new IP address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:C27:5D5A:F5A1:705B He has so far, already reverted one editor, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598239846&oldid=598238687 after being unable to edit with his account on the same page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ash_Wednesday&diff=598217112&oldid=598208511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you not bring it to AN/I maybe? If not, I'll look into it but I won't have time for about 8 hours, if then.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What is AN/I? 8 hours is okay but I guarantee you that this guy is going to go ballistic between now and then, just like he did on the Lent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI. It's a noticeboard to get the attention of admins for emerging situations. If you haven't done something by later I'll try to look at it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, you can take care of it later, unless it gets really bad, in which case I'll let you know. There's also a third IP address being used by LimosaCorel, on the same article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:E54D:20C3:B245:C208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Callanecc took care of it, thanks! Thanks for your work here too, 131.123.177.3.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive

Excuse me, I am not plagiarizing any webpage. I am saying things in my own words and I have gone on to cite the websites the information came from. You may not be able to see the citations because you deleted all of them from the Rodeo Drive page. Jbrubins (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole Walk of Style article was copy/pasted from one of the sources. See here for proof.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not copied from the website, it was reworded. But yes, I got information from it because it was valid information. After I used it, I cited the website the information was from. Jbrubins (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ask your teacher if it was plagiarized or not, ok? you reworded it using the same words that were on the website. Anyway, if you disagree, engage on the article talk page rather than here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The information was taken from the website, but the sentences were reworded in order to stay away from plagiarism. Obviously I cannot change the website's information, because it is valid, known information, which is why it was included on the Wikipedia page. Jbrubins (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd better talk with your teacher about what plagiarism is, OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what it is. Thanks for your concern. Jbrubins (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're aware of what it is, and yet you do it anyway? Lovely. Enjoy your educational experience.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Devils Advocate

I'm just playing Devils advocate. Both sides should be fairly represented. Otherwise it would be the AP Stylebook vs relevent arguments.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I never expect things to break down in a simple way to this side vs. that side. Thanks for starting the RfC.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Drmies (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For all-around good work, and specifically Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apple-ologies

BMK (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! And I apologized myself at the article talk page. Have a serene evening!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Close

Yes I closed it.I think the answers were obvious. More information should be added. There needs more balance. And the template should stay. After reading Atsme's comments I can see no reason to continue. I'm now going to ANI to report exactly what I've done and ask that I be blocked if it was wrong.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding. Well, knock yourself out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right I'm going to go to request for closure. The RFC certainly isn't helping to settle the dispute. He feels he's being harrassed. He keeps threatening to take this to what ever dispute resolution and now he's going to wait until it's over and use it as evidence. I'm done. This has been to much.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just let it run but bow out if it's too much for you? You've gotten it started, there's no requirement that you keep working on it. There's actually productive conversation taking place and no real harassment. Any complaints about harassment won't be taken seriously by anyone at this point, really.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a productive.. You know what ok...Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Haalp! prease!

Alf, I wonder if you could squiggle the boffin in you to iron up the citational problem that just arose with my edits to Amalek. I use the ref name="" /, but have never got the hang of how to add to the source ref plate when citing an author on different pages of his book, how to add p.124 p.126 etc. Others do it, damn it. Just saying say Horowitz/ after the first ref to him clarifies one page, when in fact he is being used for another page in the book, strikes me as bad practice. ? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I did it in one of the many possible ways; I'm not too enamoured of this method, but on the other hand I know how to do it. If it doesn't meet your needs we can figure out another solution. The problem was that the software is only smart enough to match exact reference names, so if you say <ref name=blahblahblah> some book by some guy</ref> and then try to invoke that by putting the page in the name like <ref name=blahblahblah34/> it just thinks that's a new reference and that you never defined it, so you get the big ugly error message at the bottom.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, pal. You're a champion. I'll add you to the growing list (User:NSH001 was the first, User:Johnuniq was moved by a head-shaking compassion at egregious technical blunders, etc.) of wikipedians volunteering to wipe my arse-ups as I drift into senescence but persist mindlessly in the habit of making edits! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I'd frame it more like I'm grinding your pigments, cleaning your brushes, and blocking out your backgrounds, so that you can add the master touches that make the masterpiece, but I suppose it's all the same thing in the end.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was scratching my head over how to do the page number differences from the same source and still keep using <ref name="this source"/> So {{rp|page(s)}} Alatari (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. That's just one way to do it, and the easiest way for me to remember. There are others, though. The best way to find out about them is to look at a bunch of featured articles and see the various ways they've managed it. The big advantage of the {{rp|#}} method is that you don't have to redo the referencing system for the whole article if it's a mess when you start working on it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Nice work on Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing, as usual. Enjoy some pie as a small token of my appreciation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and very kind. It's almost 3.14, too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)