text:
are all here to help each other at the end of the day, and to work on building a massive on-line encyclopaedia for people to visit, we shouldn't be bickering over minor little things.  Wesley  Mouse  00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay pal forget it and review my confirmed request.Myownmilkshake (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked Myownmilkshake for being a disruptive single purpose account harassing Armburst. His first edit makes that conclusion eminently clear.  MBisanz  talk 01:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have blocked Myownmilkshake myself if MBisanz hadn't beat me to it.I have no doubt whatsoever upon reviewing this "new" account's edits that they created the account solely to troll Armbrust and/or cause disruption. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do sincerely apologise for butting into something that I haven't been involved in here. This page is on my watchlist and the user name amused me, so I thought I'd come and see what was going on.  After reading the accusations I felt as if I needed to at least say something but calmingly (which I hope my comment came across that way).  Hope I haven't offended anyone by stepping in here.  Wesley  Mouse  01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, you didn't butt in and your advice was perfectly sound. Those sort of reasoned comments are greatly appreciated and encouraged. Just after five years and 180,000 actions, I can spot things a bit quicker then many others.  MBisanz  talk 01:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a free Wikipedia. You're quite allowed to make any good-faith comment anywhere you wish.  No one has the right to object.  Not that anyone here has.  If you have something to contribute to any discussion, anywhere on Wikipedia, feel free.  We appreciate your comments!  -- Jayron  32  01:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phew, that's OK then, I'll get back to packing my luggage ready for my big London 2012 Olympic Volunteering adventure. Thanks for kindness.  Wesley  Mouse  01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Xentram and Myownmilkshake are ✅ as each other, as well as at least a dozen other socks. --MuZemike 23:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oh I feel a little bit shaken by this now. Both the users literally had a conversation with each other at the start of this thread, as if they were two different people.  Not only that, Xentram sent me a message on my talk page stating he was also a volunteer at the Olympics.  I trusted him at word value, and now I feel mortified that I have been tricked.  Xentram even emailed me, and I told him my role at the games and where I would be staying.  Now I feel stupid in trusting someone and divulging so much information.  Is there anything that can be done?  Wesley  Mouse  00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, one can endeavor in the future to be somewhat less naive, to learn from one's experiences as an editor, to makes better use of one's intellectual capacity to judge other people's actions, and not to jump to unwarranted conclusions – positive or negative – about other editor's motivations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam Ant Is the Blueblack Hussar in Marrying the Gunner's Daughter
Just wanted to give a head's up. I've removed a song listing from this article per<PHONE_NUMBER>008218 which violated the original synthesis rule. Basically someone correctly guessed song ids from ASCAP about this upcoming album. (The song database does not say these tracks will be on this album). Not only does this addition violate the original synthesis rule, the publisher has become so agitated they delayed the album release and cancelled this artist's world tour. See. Someone's already reverted my deletion once. But until the track list has been mentioned in a third party reliable source, they should not be on Wikipedia. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 01:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clear something up - no "world tour" was ever cancelled. As the linked article (apparently sourced from a short  announcement on Adam Ant's official website) makes clear, only a *US* tour was *postponed*. This was not surprising at the time as reports had been circulating of possible US visa issues for Adam relating to his mental health issues and 2002/2003 convictions for affray.
 * As far as album delays go, there has been a constant stream of delays since 2010. That particular delay was no news story at all.
 * For what it's worth, I've made some inquiries and been reliably informed that the Wikipedia album page was *not* the cause of the postponement - in reality the removal request<PHONE_NUMBER>008218 - whatever its send may have claimed - was sent due to concerns about the accuracy/up-to-dateness of the song list ... <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Little help
My original account has been blocked for 24 hours in violation of 3RR rule.So, I have created this account temporarily with being aware of Sockpuppet policy just to ask would it be evasion of my block if I put a You've got an e-mail template on another user's talkpage? Laughifyouplay (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be, as is your posting here. In the future, if you have questions while blocked, ask on your blocked account's talk page, and add an adminhelp template. Monty  845  01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war & resulting personal attacks
I submitted a dispute resolution request here regarding an issue on List of countries by beer consumption per capita. Shortly thereafter one of the editors involved made a pointed comment about my personal life. I removed the attack and another editor, whose edits are borderline meatpuppetry, reverted my removal. I reverted again and the orginal editor restored the talk page yet again. This is not the first time these two have gone 1-2-1 with edits/reverts on this particular wiki. It's worth noting (as I did in my request for dispute resolution) that the debate is over whether or not to sort the list of beer consumed per capita alphabetically or by volume consumed. Each is easily sorted, but there seems to be a lack of good faith for the "average reader's" ability to discern how to best do that. The issue started within the past two days, altering an article that had been established for about six years. All of that aside, the #1 concern I have is that these two editors are going 1-2-1 with reverts to avoid 3RR, throwing out personal attacks needlessly, and canvasing across unrelated wikis looking for support. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 02:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is always astonishing to me how much emotion people can invest in issues that are so utterly trivial. Looie496 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, this is something well noted in all walks of life. See Parkinson's Law of Triviality and Sayre's law.  -- Jayron  32  03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this discussion was the latest of many to top 300,000 kb of text? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It was not a personal attack by Jbening. It was a question. See diff. I have not been canvassing. I have been leaving the rank order template on various list and table pages, or their talk pages, for awhile now. The other issues belong on the article talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, it was a bit over the line. Casting aspersions in question form is still casting aspersions, and saying it could only have one result: to insult the recipient of the question.  It wasn't the worst thing I've read at Wikipedia today, but in general it is best to avoid personalizing discussions like that.  It only serves to steer the discussion off course, and minimize the chance of having a satisfactory result.  Simply put: don't do things like that, because it makes it harder to work collegially with others.  -- Jayron  32  04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, for what it's worth, I think coming to the drama boards for such a small thing is, as Erikeltic would say, "NONSENSE". Note his use of capital letters. But what do I know. ;) --Timeshifter (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a personal attack and saying an edit is nonsense.  Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 01:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the whole paragraph that Jbening wrote that contains the sentence in question (in italics):

 * Erikeltic, can I ask you please to dial it back a bit? I've tried to be civil in all my comments, even though I do confess to some frustration that it doesn't seem like you're hearing what I'm saying, while you keep coming out both guns blazing in your replies. Absolute nonsense? It was an attempt to be helpful. If you disagree with it, fine. I'm not wedded to it. But I think you're being a bit over the top in calling it absolute nonsense. Are you this way with your friends, or only online?

 * Out of context, it may be as Jayron32, the admin, said. That is if you stretch it as far as possible, this may be "casting aspersions". But that even that is far from a personal attack. In context it is not remotely a personal attack or even casting aspersions. It is about as civil as one can be in pointing out another person's tone. Admins should know better than to take things out of context. I think this lack of admin ability to understand and deal with both personal disputes and content disputes is why there are more articles, but less editors. I can understand why average editors may get lost in all the disputes, but I do not see admins getting to the meat of issues by dealing with the content disputes. But that is a long story with many causes. See my link. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User Erikeltic has escalated to removing talk page comments
It seems User:Erikeltic is now tag-teaming with User:Chipmunkdavis in removing my talk page comments on various page. This is a violation of WP:Talk. Specifically, they are removing a banner I created saying that it only belongs on articles. rank order. I mean I created the banner, and I know where I want to put it. I have been putting it on talk pages when people remove it from articles. Many people will not notice talk page banners, and so that is why I put it first on the article. If someone removes it from the article, then I know at least someone is probably also paying attention to the talk page. So I put it there to initiate discussion. I put it in a new talk section too so that discussion is possible. User:Erikeltic is blocking this discussion from happening. This is more of his pattern of obstruction. He has driven away Jbening from further editing of List of countries by beer consumption per capita. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the talk pages involved:
 * Talk:List of national capitals by population
 * Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area
 * I notified both of the above-mentioned users. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer and gets but one response, so here it is. Editor Timeshifter and I had an encounter on another article. I look at his recent contribs and noticed that he was still canvassing and disrupting other articles to make a point about the first wiki. I reverted two of these edits, both of which were inappropriate templates that didn't belong on a talk page. He added no comments at all, just templates that didn't belong where he stuck them. That's it... the end. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You obviously did not read or understand my reply concerning canvassing higher up. I think this illustrates the whole problem. And as for getting only one response, I would point out that it was you that started this whole thread on the drama boards. Over a trivial one-sentence remark from Jbening. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm only responding to your "removing talk page comments" silliness once. I've done that.  Responding to the reasons we're here initially is quite different.  The second reason I came to ANI was because you and another editor were going 1-2-1 on reverts and perpetuating an edit war.  And yeah... I read you reply, I don't accept it.  Creating your own template about sorting and then posting said template across a bunch of articles is, IMHO, canvassing and exceedingly pointy when you're in a "discussion" about sorting elsewhere.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 10:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't get it, do you? As I said, I have been posting rank order for awhile now. Well before our interactions. See WP:CANVAS. That tag does not mention our interactions. Maybe it is a vast plot to undermine the reality distortion field of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your contribs, and I concede that you were not canvassing. My apologies.  However, you were still engaging in an edit war and doing reverts 1-2-1 over ownership issues.  Are you willing to no longer do that type of thing, except in cases of gross vandalism?  Make that promise and I'll drop the ANI here and now.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the one doing the reverts of the only editor (Jbening) to have done a major update of the list in a long time. There have been no reverts since your revert of Jbening on July 20. See diff. You have driven away Jbening. On July 19 he wrote this in reply to you: "Also, you went 15 months without doing anything about the major update you noted the need for back in February, 2011, which doesn't bode well. But looking back over the number of words spent discussing this piece of triviata, I grow weary, so I think I'm going to check out. Maybe I'll have a look at the page after the 2011 numbers come out, to see if you or anyone else has actually updated the table. Cheers!" --Timeshifter (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll buy you a beer and we'll drop it.  The ANI discussion here has nothing (in my opinion) to do with the content.  My issue was with your actions during that dispute.  I will consider the matter closed.  I only hope that in the future it doesn't happen.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 10:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake Admin?
User making some rather strange comments on a Talk page, claiming to be an admin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that he has placed a in his signature, which is against WP:SIGN to begin with. However, the bigger concern is that he is trying to impersonate an administrator. I have removed the subst'd userbox from his signature and the top four misleading userboxes on his userpage. --MuZemike 23:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Update! They have released a statement at User talk:PoppingCorns. I think this is resolved. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Regarding the comment by Beeblebrox on the editor's talk page, it looks to me like this editor simply copy-pasted a bunch of userboxes from some admin's user page -- all those userboxes showed up at the same moment. Even so, past experience says an editor who behaves this erratically is destined to be indef'ed within the very near future. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Since they included when he was made an admin, it was easy to determine that he copied the page from Nightscream. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially since one of PC's userboxes said to contact him by "Leave a message here". Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Hmm the editor concerned apparently inherited the account with their laptop (with the blessing of the former owner but still....) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He reminds me of CrustyPores = LustyRoars, bless him. Just sayin'  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know, he does me as well. As do the other new accounts on that IP  - User:StrikingSimilarity and User:ShanklyMyDear User:Bonfondles and User:RugitVigoureux --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Snow closure?
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Rollbacker_and_Reviewer_Cabal seems to be an obvious snowball closure. Any admin have the balls to close this thing? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted per WP:SNOW. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed
An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
 * 2) Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
 * 3) At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
 * 4) Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
 * 5) Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
 * 6) When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
 * 7) Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 8) Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 9) Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Discuss this

Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed
Take a look at ongoing thread which may require attention on poor judgement and very bad adminship of User:GB_fan. Thanks! Olenglishaway (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * GB fan should have checked that User:OlEnglish had made the edit supposedly confirming the alt account, but since I've already blocked User:Olenglishaway I don't think there is really anything to see here. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I just hardened the block. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah - thanks for that! SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PERM/C request. (NAC) ⇒ T A  P  17:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. GB fan 17:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yeah, Thanks for blocking as I had already requested a harder block.But, My point is that I had played with system to insure that All admin task is correctly done.It's all safe now because it was a mock drill.But, what if a real vandal just impersonated another senior contributor and passed safely through confirmed rights and vandalized massively? What if same thing happens at rollback rights or any other flags? What about massive vandalism via Huggle? It would be damn harder to revert all those edits.I'm sure that You have learned a lesson to double check every request.Thanks.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the minimal privileges that come with Confirmed status, this is just a silly waste of admin time. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * For the record, that was definitely not me. But I have strong suspicions on who it might have been. -- œ ™ 17:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about what if vandal was able to pass through rollback just like this? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about WP:Block evasion max.. you only had 1 month to do.. now your main account can be blocked indefinitely, nice going. -- œ ™ 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Somce this IP has admitted to being the engineer of this " breaching experiment" I have blocked it as well Wikipedia is not a toy and it is almost certain this is some sort of returning blocked user or troll. I think we have wasted enough time on their games. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a SPI before the block on Maxviwe. See Sockpuppet investigations/Maxviwe. Could be useful. Thanks! ⇒ T A  P  17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * ✅ by CheckUser; Sockpuppet investigations/Maxviwe. ⇒ T A  P  18:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean ? T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yep. ⇒ T A  P  18:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed
An arbitration case regarding User:Fæ has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.
 * 2) Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.
 * 3) As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.
 * 4) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
 * 5) For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment.
 * 6) Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Discuss this

MPK Engineering
For some reasons the non-existing page MPK Engineering is restricted for administrators only. As an engineering subsidiary of Itera, I would like to redirect this page to the Itera article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very odd. As far as I can see, the page has never existed, nor been protected.  Still, I have created it. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the title blacklist. Hut 8.5 21:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I've forgotten how my regex tester works, it doesn't match anything on the blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek - Arbcom block

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I posted this elsewhere to allow Arbcom the opportunity to respond. I didn't expect a response and didn't get one, so here we are, as I planned to do anyways.

There was a discussion of privacy going on at the Fae case and I thought the parallels were interesting in relation to NewtonGeek's block. Of course, at least some of NG's privacy was already given away by Secretlondon way back when at the Factseducado SPI event. Now, it can't be confirmed whether the bureaucrat NG was in contact with was Secretlondon (unless Secretlondon would like to confirm it), but it can be highly assumed. Especially considering that, when asked by the bureaucrat whether certain information could be revealed in the SPI, NG said no, but then suddenly Secretlondon is at the SPI revealing said info anyways. Nice bureaucrats we have here.

Onto the current events regarding NG. It seems that because of the past information leak regarding NG and Factseducado, members of Wikipediocracy found out the real identity of NG and Factseducado (with later repeated leaking of information thanks to Jayen and DracoEssentialis not helping, though Elen fixed the leak Jayen had purposefully made). Around the same time frame as NG leaving Wikipediocracy, spam emails started arriving, computer viruses, and worse computer issues began happening, not to mention continued discussion on Wikipediocracy about NG's real identity and harassing comments. Thus, for the past few weeks, NG has been in email contact with Arbcom about the issues in relation to WO members and the continued referencing of personal information on Wikipediocracy (mostly because of Kohs and HRIP7).

Now, as for the block. The reasons are interesting. Trolling is the main one given, primarily because NG was advised to stop commenting on the Fae case, considering the involvement of certain Wikipediocracy members that then have a negative involvement with NG. But NG didn't stop commenting and NG didn't have to. NG had also found out a significant amount of information in relation to the harassment of Fae, including WO users looking for things to mock him for from his 1990's histories and the doxing of any account revealed to be related to him (which is likely why he doesn't want to reveal certain accounts publicly). There's no rule that NG had to stop being involved anyways without being ordered to and Arbcom could have quite easily just kicked NG specifically out of the talk page if they wanted to. Instead, they indefinitely blocked NG. Now, ignoring the block reason and all the stuff before it became an Arbcom block, that's all a sideshow, why exactly was NG blocked? Because "trolling" definitely doesn't fall under Arbcom block standards. I'm sure someone will bring up checkuser data, as was commented on at the ANI discussion. But this must be wrong! Because the results of a checkuser are already well known, in fact, that is related to the private information that was leaked. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado are well, well known and were already discussed far in the past. So what checkuser data could there possibly be? If there was socking issues, that would have been pointed out, but it wasn't.

So, what exactly is the background for such a block? "Trolling and competency"? As has been pointed out by multiple users, NG was one of the most coherent commenters on this talk page, making very pointed and accurate comments. and being a rather good help to revealing the harassment campaign against Fae. And, regardless, neither of the listed reasons fall under an Arbcom block at all, so it should be up to the community on whether the block is kept. So what really is going on here? Silver seren C 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * According to Roger Davis' block rationale. It's an ArbCom block "based in part on Checkuser data". I'd suggest that you take this up with Roger. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the checkuser data is already known. From the last checkuser. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado was already explained, look at NG's block log. And if there was a sockpuppet issue, then that should have been stated. What other kind of checkuser data could there possibly be? Silver  seren C 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that this has also been discussed, in considerable depth, at WP:ANI. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by also raising it here now that thread as been closed. Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion on ANI didn't discuss it as an Arbcom block, because that was only enacted at the end, with no true reason why. There's no evidence for why a checkuser would reveal anything. Silver  seren C 01:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't my reading of the thread. Your claim at the start of this thread that ArbCom didn't engage in that discussion is baseless - I see that several arbitrators commented there, and that there was also discussion of the block on the editor's talk page. There was also general (though not universal) support for the block from the editors who commented at ANI, so the community has in fact decided to uphold the block (not that this actually matters given that its an ArbCom block, and so would need to be appealed through ArbCom's procedures). This seems to be a case where WP:STICK and WP:WALK applies. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the block by Risker was not in line with policy, the block by Roger (given the nature of ArbCom) was in line with policy. Is this block final? I'm not terribly familiar with how ArbCom works. My impression would be that if you have a question for ArbCom, you would raise it on a page related to them, and if you can't find a satisfactory answer there, you might take it to Jimbo or WMF, if it is worth pursuing to that point. Considering that ArbCom has information we do not, I cannot second-guess their rationale and have to take it on face value that it was a proper block. If ArbCom at some point is found to be genuinely acting in bad faith, then we have a problem, but at present, their assertion of a block is sufficient for me to consider it a valid action. -- Avanu (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You must count differently than me, I see far more people opposing the block than supporting it. So, where would be the place to appeal this then? The Amendments page? Silver  seren C 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WT:AC doesn't appear to be for that. Where's the proper place to discuss this? Silver seren C 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * NewtonGeek is presumably an adult, therefore he can handle his appeals on his own, and I believe Risker or others have noted that they and he have been in e-mail communication regarding this. So, perhaps it'd be better all around if you find another hobby.  No one here has appointed you some sort of wiki-public defender. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I am more or less NewtonGeek's appointed appealer anyways, for the mere fact that Arbcom is purposefully not responding to him or explaining why he was blocked beyond "trolling". Of course, there were only 2 to three responses from Arbcom anyways, keeping in track with their usual method of blocking under "Arbcom block" and then not responding to emails about it. I'll just go to WT:AC for now and wherever else is necessary after that. Silver  seren C 01:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) On further reflection, if you really want a full appeal, possibly an amendment/clarification/arbitration request. But I warn you that this is just going to cause drama, and your request will probably be declined. I accept no responsibility for any consequences if you go this route. WP:STICK. I endorse Tarc's comments above, as well. --Rschen7754 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, i'm not going to sit by and allow a user to be wrongfully blocked without even a proper explanation just because we're all supposed to be afraid of Arbcom and not question them. Silver  seren C 01:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussions at WT:AC/N, I don't think that many people feel that ArbCom can't be questioned ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leonid Michelson
I noticed that significant part of Leonid Michelson article is copy-pasted from rumafia. com / person. php?id = 69 (the url should be without spaces). However, I was not able to add this link to the maintenance tag as this site is blacklisted. Beagel (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave it out of the space on the tag for it, go back and edit the tag to add it just as plain text. Or put the info on the talkpage, but put the url on as plain text as you have done here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User Yehuda Falk
An IP added a deceased notice to Falk's user page. The IP then requested semi-protection of the page. I removed the deceased notice and declined the request per WP:DWG.

My concern is whether more needs to be done to find out if the user in fact died. He didn't edit very much, nor has he edited since February 2012, so it's unlikely anyone here knows him. Should we just wait to see if better confirmation is forthcoming (from his family or colleagues)? (I will continue to monitor his user page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Of course whenever this happens we all hope it is not true. The crux of the issue, as with anything alse here, is verification. A claim from an IP is not considered verification. He used his real name and identified his places of residence and employment so there should be an obituary forthcoming if he has indeed died. Unless and until we have such verification there shold be no tagging or administrative action taken. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please watchlist WP:ERRORS
Admins: I just got a note on my talk page that response time at WP:ERRORS has been slow. That page exists to correct mistakes on our welcome mat. Please watchlist WP:ERRORS and help us respond quickly. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Name in Biography : Amar Mitra
The wikipedia article on Amar Mitra is on a separate person named Amar Mitra Peddireddy. Amar Mitra is a reputed writer in Bengali and a Sahitya Akademy award winner.

Due to this problem of linking, the link Amar Mitra in List of Sahitya Akademy Winners in Bengali opens up with the Biographical details of Amar Mitra Peddireddy

Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the references, now you can start the article about the writer.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Heading Ted Patrick and Heading Deprograming
I believe that parties have been changing the information about Ted Patrick and Deprogramming to portray Patrick and the process in a negative light. This has been happening over time and if you search under those heading and read them, I think you may be able to conclude why. There were some excellent links under Ted Patrick's name regarding testimony he'd given to public inquires on cults and some very good newspaper clippings that portrayed him in a more positive light. There're gone and a lot of negativity is creeping in. If Patrick were bad how come hundreds of parents hired him? Someone is distorting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephennorth (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insofar as this request concerns the article it does not seem to involve anything that requires the intervention of administrators, but rather the article's content, and is therefore outside the scope of this noticeboard. For general advice that may apply, see WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and, for how to address any disagreements about the content, WP:DR.   Sandstein   21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence of WP:Non-free content review
This review process about non-free content, after slow traffic and disastrous MFD, has been picked up again and needs more administrators if help is wanted. Fortunately, it is becoming busy with editors, and I think I want some reviews to be resolved once and for all... appropiately. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Site errors in middle of move
I had just started moving Syrian uprising (2011–present) to Syrian Civil War (2011–present) as per the consensus on the talkpage - after about 4 minutes of "waiting", I got a Wikimedia error ... now I'm not even sure this will post. Obviously, I've been unable to fix the additional tasks (double redirects, formally closing the RM discussion) because I'm now getting more site failures ... can anyone finish it off who is not getting these errors? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the RM to close it, but I fixed the double redirects and posted a message at the talk page pointing people to this section of WP:AN so they understand what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the RM was Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011%E2%80%93present) EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to leave "(2011–present)" in the title? The proposal was simply for Syrian Civil War and I can't see anyone in the whole discussion mentioning "Syrian Civil War (2011–present)" as an option. Jenks24 (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of references in the discussion adding it to the title, and a strong similar/related argument at the very bottom of the talk page dangerous panda 16:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read over it again. Could you point out any comments that mention it besides Master&Expert at the bottom. In any case, if people were advocating for "(2011–present)", their votes should have been given very little weight per WP:PRECISION. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate this further :-) shouldnt' that be Syrian civil war, lower-caps, as with Libyan civil war and per WP:CAPS? I don't see the point in adding the parenthesis, as there is no other Syrian civil war that needs disambiguating.  Sandstein   21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, unless you first get consensus to move the long-established American Civil War, Irish Civil War, and English Civil War. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps these are capitalized because they are long-standing appellations and have thus become proper nouns? That's probably not the case with these newer civil wars.  Sandstein   06:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my understanding is that it would be lowercase until the war is finished and Syrian Civil War becomes the official (or unofficial) name of the event. Until then, Syrian civil war is descriptive, not nominative, and is therefore probably more accurate. That's just my opinion though, not really based on much of anything. ⇒  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

op5 Monitor salted?
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/op5_Monitor appears to be salted. Cannot find any record at AfD. This iteration of the article appears to be ok, albeit a stub. Help please?  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 05:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was salted after several speedy deletions for being blatant advertising (G11). These were all in 2008, so I'm inclined to unsalt it, but it's very late in the US so I'm going to go to bed instead of using the tools and not seeing something important. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See its log. I wouldn't be open to unsalting randomly, but since there's an AFC ready to go, I've removed all protection.  Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nyttend. I will go ahead and create it, and then keep an eye on it just in case this is the thin end of a wedge!  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pagemove
This page-move request has been open 15 days and now has a consensus to proceed. Anyone wanna take care of it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked the queue for requested moves was over 200 ... any reason why this one is more important than the others that it needs a rush? dangerous panda 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Secretlondon (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But yes there were others ahead of it, but it looked simple. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious discrimination issue
Dear administrators:

I have come to this forum in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard directed me here because my complaint is about another user's conduct.

To be brief: I have been participating in the User Talk page of the Intelligent Design article in recent weeks in an attempt to improve the text, and I observed the following posted by Raeky in an exchange regarding peer-reviewed sources:

"The first one, Kuhn 'Dissecting Darwinism', the front page of Baylor University states 'A top Texas Christian University.' If this publication by that university is properly peer reviewed I'd eat a copy of it."

I informed Raeky that this is a clear violation of policy against non-discrimination, and gave him the link to the policy. Baylor is a nationally accredited university, and as another user pointed out, the publication in question is peer-reviewed, although we don't know yet if the individual article in question was or was not. The fact that the university has a confessional status and is Christian in its self-identity is no reason to discard a source. If a user were to write that a nationally accredited university's secular nature disqualified its science, it would not be tolerated either.

Raeky reaffirmed his open discrimination against Baylor for being Christian in his response: "There's no reason to retract, the first is a journal from a Christian school, that right there calls into doubt it's scientific status, then the content of the article calls into doubt their standards."

Moreover, he also expressed his contempt for the non-discrimination policy, falsely claiming it isn't a policy: "Please note that that is not a policy, but an essay, and a failed essay at that, so it carries with it almost no power..." (I retract this statement about the falsehood of his claim -- in my rush to deal with this I did not see that it is not a policy --MatthewCHoffman (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Raeky has repeatedly refused to retract or delete his statement. Moreover, not a single objection, other than mine, has been registered against his openly discriminatory statements, which indicates to me that the users who edit this article do not take this policy seriously and have motivations other than objectivity in editing this article. I respectfully request enforcement of the non-discrimination policy. Thank you. --MatthewCHoffman (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO this is not a case of religious discrimination, and there is no question about the formal status of Baylor University. The question seems to be more "philosophical".  Christian Faith-based institutions already have a particular bias towards creation a la Genesis.  Their in-house journals would be forced to continue the creation story, and not permit Intelligent Design/evolution on the whole.  As such, the question of the reliability of the source comes into play when trying to use it - how scientific is it if it must conform to faith-based teachings? dangerous panda  16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (e-c) First, I believe the editor who started this thread should perhaps know that this material more reasonabaly would have been placed at WP:ANI rather than here, as it is about a specific incident. Secondly, it is worth noting that the Kuhn "paper" mentioned above is, as per recent discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, an editorial in the publication. As is already said on the talk page in question, editorials are in general not subject to peer review, so the claim that it appears in a peer-reviewed journal is misleading. I do agree that some of Raeky's comments are less than optimum, but I also note that the editor above seems to be actively misrepresenting things himself. Specifically, Discrimination is, as per the template at the top of that page, an essay, and, as per the top template on that page, "Essays are not wikipedia policies," and is even marked in the second template on that page as a failed proposal. Therefore, there is no policy to enforce. I respectfully urge the editor who started this thread to familiarize himself a bit better with wikipedia's policies and guidelines as per WP:PG before filing such comments, on the wrong page, again. John Carter (talk)
 * Religious discrimination isn't OK, regardless of whether the page in question is an "essay", "guideline", or "policy". I wouldn't dismiss the original poster's concern on those extremely narrow and technical grounds. That said, I don't think this is really an issue of religious discrimination. On the one hand, the focus of the talk-page discussion is off-base. Baylor is a reputable university, and I don't think that its Christian affiliation is a rationale for discounting scholarly work published by its faculty. It's not really productive to focus on Baylor's religious affiliation. The focus should be on the source itself, which presents a number of red flags discussed (appropriately) on the talk page. MastCell Talk 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * In this instance the fact that it's an institution describing itself as Christian is irrelevant, we've discussed the paper extensively before and found secondary sources commenting on it, as well as noting that the paper in question wasn't peer reviewed science. The user name Matthew Hoffman also sounds familiar from the topic area, but that may be a coincidence. On a broader aspect, Christian affiliations can be a red flag, as in the Oral Roberts University medical school which the BBC's Mark Mardell called into question.. That may be unfair to ORU, another more blatant example which springs to mind is the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy where ID wasn't YEC enough. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Oral Roberts medical school closed in the 1980s and never really participated in the scientific or scholarly communities. Baylor is well-established, and researchers there do excellent mainstream scientific work, collaborate with scientists elsewhere, receive NIH funding, publish in reputable journals, etc. It's a typical large academic medical center, and not in any way the same kettle of fish as Oral Roberts University or a theological seminary. Contrarians or people with odd, unscientific ideas can be found in virtually every reputable academic institution, but that's not unique to Baylor nor, as best I can tell, a product of its institutional religious affiliation. MastCell Talk 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did err in my statement that the policy is clearly-defined (and I have stated my retraction in the original, see above -- I missed the statement at the top in my rush to deal with this), although I must say that if Wikipedia really doesn't regard this as bias then I have no place here, and neither does anyone else with integrity. One could claim that we shouldn't trust secular institutions either because they tend to have a bias against any conclusion that could be helpful to religion.

What I would like to know is: does Wikipedia regard it as acceptable for users to disqualify a publication because of the confessional status of the institution with which it is affiliated, even when it is a nationally accredited institution? Is this not evidence of serious bias, or is this kind of talk permitted on the talk pages? --MatthewCHoffman (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this instance Baylor medical school published an anti-evolution opinion piece by a rather eccentric surgeon, and ID proponents quickly claimed it as peer-reviewed proof of ID pseudoscience. Rogue papers slipped through without adequate peer review process do occur in controversial areas, as in the Sternberg peer review controversy. There have also been instances of Bible colleges requiring pseudoscience as an article of faith, it was reasonable of an editor to question this but in this instance everyone can be assured that Baylor has a sound reputation for good quality peer reviewed science. If the confessional status of an institution requires all its staff to reiterate YEC beliefs, as in the Dembski affair, then its publications would not be reliable sources on evolution or on geology, though they could be reliable primary sources of YEC views. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) @MatthewCHoffman: You have your answer; you're correct that the paper shouldn't be disqualified on the basis of Baylor's institutional religious affiliation. At the same time, people have identified numerous concerns about the paper that have nothing to do with Baylor per se, and the most productive approach going forward is probably to engage those concerns at Talk:Intelligent design. MastCell Talk 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One could claim that we shouldn't trust secular institutions either because they tend to have a bias against any conclusion that could be helpful to religion - That is simply a plain wrong argument. "Secular" means "not affiliated with (any particular) religion". It does not mean "opposed to religion". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually "secular" means "not religious in nature", it has nothing to do with not being connected to specific dominations, nor does it carry the connotation of "anti-religious". Secular institutions are non-religious institutions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just pettiness. The lack of a religious confession can be a result of anti-religious sentiment. That is all I meant. I live in Mexico, where terms similar to "secular" ("laicista," and the related "laicismo") are used often in an anti-religious way. Besides, there are no explicitly anti-religious universities, but many secular ones seem to have a a bias against western forms of theism. --MatthewCHoffman (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just pettiness. No, this is using words to mean what they mean, not what one would like them to mean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Affirming the consequent? Good universities educate students. This will necessarily result in a critical questioning of the more stupid forms of literal interpretations of religions. But that is not a sign of bias, its a natural outcome of teaching people to think and question - the core purpose of any educational institution, religious or secular. Most secular universities do e.g. have departments of theology or even divinity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Still haven't really been "officially" notified of this yet, Matthew edited my user page not my talk page with the notice but that was apparently well after the topic was started. My point I was trying to make, hopefully it was clear, is that for a scientific source a source from a professed christian organization may not be the best source. I said this mostly after reading the article in the Baylor journal, which was just basically the same old ID arguments, so I called the journal into question, if they'd allow that in there, even as a review article. Sure Baylor makes scientific contributions and publishes in real journals. But that doesn't mean we accept anything they say as scientific truth or that we don't need to take closer look at some of their publications when used for making scientific claims. As was pointed out by numerous editors at the ID article that these sources are not peer reviewed, and I don't think it's controversial to state that publications from a professed christian school that makes pseudoscientific claims in those publications need to be carefully checked and weighed before you use them in a scientific article or to make a scientific claim. — raeky  t  18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, it's unfortunate that this particular publication reflects badly on an otherwise reputable publisher. Your questioning of the source was entirely reasonable, and your opinion is supported by the expert views of Jerry Coyne who described the paper as "an embarrassment to the author, to the journal, and to the field of medicine as a whole. I call on the journal to retract this paper, for if it doesn’t, then the Proceedings of the Baylor University Medical Center will be forever tarred as a vehicle for creationist nonsense." . .  dave souza, talk 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now if only we could get as much editorial effort devoted to the also Baylor-related question of …. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Baylor is not at the level of the other institutions mentioned. It's just not true that because a publication publishes once an anti-evolution article as an editorial, it condemns everything else they may publish, and JC was presumably speaking as a participant in an argument; certainly what he said is hyperbole.  Good and sensible people have believed in ID. They're in my personal opinion objectively wrong, but they can't be treated as evil or ill-intentioned.  Some outside Wikipedia do, and they do not in my opinion help the cause of science. Rather they just reinforce each other and convince the ill-informed that evolutionists are insufficiently reasonable to be taken seriously.  DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, I can't comment on the goodness or sensibility of people who believe in ID, but the claim is that ID is science and the Proceedings is presented as a scientific journal, not a faith based publication. As the Kitzmiller conclusion states, "while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."
 * It was entirely appropriate for an editor to question the suitability of this source for a scientific claim: Baylor Medical School had in this instance published unscientific speculation. Curious wording "that evolutionists are insufficiently reasonable", who are these "evolutionists" you seem to be disparaging? . . dave souza, talk 05:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think DGG is disparaging anyone. He's just saying that overly strident arguments against intelligent design can backfire by making their authors seem shrill and unreasonable. In real life, as on Wikipedia, people often judge the correctness of an argument by the superficial civility of its proponents rather than by its objective merit. That's one reason why counterfactual movements like AIDS denialism, climate change "skepticism", vaccine paranoia, and intelligent design are so persistent. Such is life. MastCell Talk 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I thought this page was for resolving issues over the application of Wikipedia policy, not opining about the subject matter of an article. Your personal opinions about ID, which have no authority in and of themselves, are not relevant to the article, and especially not to my point. My point was about disqualifying a source because it is published by a nationally accredited confessional university that self-identifies as Christian, simply because it is Christian. That was my only question. Yet we see all of this open bashing of ID. Not all scientists agree about ID being non-science, although a majority certainly reject it. The ID article should indicate the views of the majority among scientists, and not give undue weight to minority positions, but it should present the subject matter accurately and not be an editorial for or against ID. Can we at least establish that? --MatthewCHoffman (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bit unclear whom you are replying to. Anyways, given that in the concrete case the source was an editorial, neither peer-reviewed nor a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion, is there anything left to clarify? The source is bad - not because Baylor is a Christian university, but because its published as a non-reviewed opinion piece by a non-expert. This board does not make policy, nor sanction opinions, even if mistaken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it has been well established that ID comes firmly under the Fringe theories guideline:

 * Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I need to clarify & expand my comment. ID may be a fringe opinion, but Christianity is not. There have frequently been arguments that no Christian source can be a reliable source about the New Testament. This has also been used even for other less central subjects in which a Christian may be interested that relate in some way to religion. And it has also been used in--in the discussion above and elsewhere --to say that nothing in a publication from a college affiliated with Christianity is a RS for anything   which relates in some manner to religion. Such claims about other religions are rarer, because they could easily be  interpreted as one of the taboo anti-'s, but I've seen them about both Islam and Judaism, and the various branches of each. To put this is perspective,  in some religions believers hold the exact inverse, that unless on is a believer in  the religion, one can not be a RS about it. I consider all versions of this to be either examples of bigotry, or the self-defensive fear that one's opinions will not hold up to logical neutral argument.   DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, you appear to be demanding that religious organisations be given unquestioning credence on a science topic. Organisations are entitled to hold views, but they are not entitled to obscure the overwhelming majority scientific opinion. We've been bending over backwards to give credence to Baylor's record as a university with reputable credentials in science, but looking a bit further they've had a rather chequered past record with specific regard to ID: their Michael Polanyi Center was apparently the first center at a research university exclusively dedicated to intelligent design study, though they may have had their finger burnt a bit with that. Your comments on bigotry are verging on personal attacks against other editors, please accept that logical neutral argument might not support your religious views. Of course religious colleges can have their place as sources on religion, for example the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is no doubt well informed about theology. . . . dave souza, talk 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this particular Seminary, but, from my experience with some Souther Baptists, your last sentence is far from being a given. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they really just came up because they threw out disciplined ID proponent Dembski for not toeing the YEC line: undoubtedly they'd have different theological views from evangelicals who accept modern geology. Perhaps best treated as a primary source. . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC) amended 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to DGG, I think I might see his point. His statement was basically that ID is a fringe theory, which I think we all agree, but that Christianity (or, for that matter, other religions) are not. Granted, I am a Christian as well, and some of you might question me on that basis as well. And, as he says, we should not discount any and all information relating to a subject which might broadly qualify as "religious" from a publication associated with a religious institution just on that basis. Christianity is one such example. Elsewhere on this page recently we have had disputes about apparently religious reference books, which some assume to be biased on that basis. Honestly, in some cases, they might be, and I hope we develop articles about the more clearly biased ones to make that easier to see. But, I do have to agree that it makes no sense to dismiss otherwise probably acceptable sources simply because of their association with an institution which is of a religious nature. Like with ID, there might be other reasons to consider them FRINGE or something similar, but that is a separate matter. But, as has been said elsewhere above, this particular source in question is an editorial in a peer-reviewed magazine, and I believe the consensus here is that the editorial in question probably does not meet RS for reasons other than pure religious discrimination, and on that basis the matter here is not actionable. SO, while I agree religious discrimination per se is a serious issue, this is not a clear example of religious discrimination, but more of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, and actions in accord with those principles regarding this particular source is acceptable as per guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, well said. The point is that we have to be free to discuss and evaluate all references to meet WP:SOURCES policy. If I can illustrate the point, the Southern Baptist controversy discussed above is reported in the Florida Baptist Witness – a fascinating perspective, clearly Christian but probably a fringe view among Christians. Useful as a primary source, very questionable about geology. In contrast, I have to hand The Bible, Rocks and Time which covers the history of geology from the evangelical Calvinist viewpoint of two geologists at Calvin College – in my view, an excellent source on the history of geology, a useful source on Biblical and philosophical perspectives on the topic, to be treated with awareness that it's from one religious viewpoint. Critical assessment of sources is not religious discrimination. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is too generic. If it were at WP:RSN the first response would have been to ask for the article text that is in question, and the source that is claimed to verify that text. Of course documents from a Christian university are not automatically disregarded, and the issue cannot be resolved without considering the details; that should be done on the article talk page. If there is a problem on that page which needs to be addressed at a noticeboard, the precise problem should be identified. An editor may have made an incorrect claim about a source, but the important issue is the actual text proposed for the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's why this dispute sounded familiar. This paper was discussed at WP:RSN earlier this year: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116.  It also got a hearing at WP:FTN: Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30.  Self-serving comments by the forum-shopping editor who filed both requests notwithstanding, the consensus in both discussions was the the article raised a number of red flags.  While it would serve as a reasonable source if we wanted to characterize the author's opinions on the topic of intelligent design and irreducible complexity, it was not held to be a particularly reliable or important source to represent widely-held views on those topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting file redirects
Can we please call a moratorium on deleting file redirects on sight until there is an actual policy that supports this? This has been brought up several times with no progress made; admins are still doing it. If this should be done, we should have a policy that supports this. For those interested I'm hoping to start a dialog at WT:CSD. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is (are?) doing the problematic deletions, and what rationale is being given? Redirects are cheap, and there is not often a good reason to clean them up.  I have, however, had files renamed without redirection on Commons per OTRS tickets expressing apparently legitimate BLP concerns. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I've not checked the deletion logs, I'm continually declining other people's attempts to get old filespace redirects deleted under R3 (recently created implausible redirect), and by their anger and persistence (one person is attacking WP:RFD on my talk page, for example), it's obvious that they're surprised at having these deletions declined. This is not the type of reaction that I'd be getting if most admins were declining these attempts.  Read on if you care about my analysis of the situation.  What happens is as follows: (1) Editor #1 uploads an image.  (2) Because we don't have any policy or guideline saying when a pagemove is appropriate, editor #2 comes around years after upload, doesn't like the name, and moves the file to a name that he prefers.  (3) Editor #2 observes that the oldest entry in the history of the redirect page is now just a few minutes old and thus figures that it's new, and because nobody is likely to look for the image under such an absurd and unlikely title, he tags it for speedy, either under R3 or G6 (housekeeping).  (4) I come along and decline the deletion because the filename has been a blue link for several years and because deletion would cause problems such as linkrot, as noted by WP:RFD#HARMFUL.  (5) Editor #2 begins arguing with me that the page is new or (despite my opposition to deletion) that deletion is noncontroversial, and discussion keeps going until someone is worn out.  Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Traffic statistics quirk
If you take a look at Wikipedia's most visited pages, you'll notice Special:Export/Robert L. Bradley, Jr and Special:Export/William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr at #5 and #7, respectively. Now, most people don't even know that Wikipedia has namespaces, let alone have knowledge of the export feature. So, what's going on? They seem like fairly ordinary and innocuous articles. Why would 58,317,471 people be interested in getting their XML files? I'm guessing that there's some sort of weird automated process going on that I'm not aware of.—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You saw that those statistics were for December 2010, did you not? Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you able to discern that? Does 201012 translate in some number system to 2010?—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I figured it out. :D I'm still curious about the weird stats I noticed, though. And why don't we have an up-to-date page of article traffic statistics?—Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those pages are listed almost certainly because a script on somebody's website malfunction and fired 100 requests a second for them for several days in December 2010. Not sure why that page doesn't update automatically, presumably because its creator didn't make it update automatically. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 18:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I'd assume the servers would lock you out if you tried to request pages that fast. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed by the resilience of our servers; the Bradley page got 6.8 million hits in one day, which is 25% more than Main Page and 60% more than Special:Search got on the same page. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Richard Dawkins
Why do we have a page for Criticism of Moses, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Muhammad, and etc. but any attempt to open an article with the slightest criticism toward Richard Dawkins is turned down? Why would discussions on whether or not to have a criticism section on Richard Dawkins's article -that by the way never reached consensus- can be used against creating a new article? Essentially, what policy would I be violating if I created the new page? Also, can we have a poll on Richard Dawkin's page to resolve this recurring issue once and for ever?--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Adding a fourth stupid article would not be an improvement to the encyclopaedia. Formerip (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then let's delete them all. Why should there be double standard?--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Reason why not WP:POVFORK, reason for would only probably be due to article length reasons for splitting WP:SPLIT. — raeky  t  13:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * One, in general, negative articles about Dawkins are held to a higher standard, per WP:BLP, and two - in the cases of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, they're sufficiently important that many artices are necessary to sufficiently cover them as encyclopaedic topics. It's possible the same isn't true of Dawkins. The correct place to discuss it is Talk:Richard Dawkins. Although I doubt Dawkins is sufficently important that a "criticism of " article is likely to be a sensible spin-out. Wily D 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You would start by adding coverage of criticism to the existing article, which if properly balanced and fairly weighted should be accepted. Then, if the criticism section(s) in the article start to get too large for the main article, a split might be reasonable. But a preemptive split will look like WP:POVFORK. Monty  845  13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't see this as an AN issue, but anyway regardless of the mertis of these article, they aren't particularly comparable. BLP applies to RD but not the other 3. On a related note, they are all very historical figures (well not everyone even except all of them existed) so there far more time for substanial scholarly criticism to emerge taking an overall view on the claimed history, rather then becoming a dumping ground for any minor recent flareup which tends to happen to critical artices on LPs (for that matter the BLPs) or for that matter even recently deceased people. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Didn't anyone know that Dawkins is the next prophet in the succession line? dangerous panda 13:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Monty,

Ok. I am going to add all the material I collected from the books I have read recently without the title of "Criticism". You are telling me that so long as they are from reliable sources, i.e. their author is a notable person, no one has a right to delete them, correct?--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC) There are criticisms throughout the article of both his philosophical views and his science. I see no need for a separate section, or article, on this. They (the criticisms) are well integrated in the current article on RD. On a side note, I have no idea what this is doing here at this noticeboard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) (which I hadn't noticed) Kazemital created a separate article which looked to me as an attempt to get around consensus not to have a separate criticism section. I've turned it into a redirect. Now he's come here complaining while at the same time having a discussion at [{Talk:Richard Dawkins]], where he didn't bother to mention this discussion to anyone (I've done that now). I (also, but I'm rewriting this and originally wrote it before Dbrodbeck's post above) don't know what the discussion is doing here but it looks like another attempt to get around any talk page consensus. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are absolutely no circumstances under which "no one has the right to delete them", and thinking in that fashion usually means you're going to have a bad time. The content of articles is decided by consensus, it's worth reading. Wily D  13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1, you seem to have omitted a key portion of my response, to help I will bold it here: properly balanced and fairly weighted. That doesn't mean each and every criticism you can find in any reliable source. Monty  845  14:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Monty here. The problem is a bit of a simple one. Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were all at their time individual leaders of a large group of faith adherents. Dawkins, however, is far from being the only current leader of the New Atheism movement. While an article on Criticism of atheism, or possibly Criticism of New Atheism, is probably not unreasonable, if sources and sufficient material can be found, that is probably the primary place to put such material. I imagine most if not all of the criticism of Dawkins can be included in one of those articles, and the criticism, if any, of Dawkins in either the main article on him or in a possible spinout article should probably be basically limited to the specific theories or actions of Richard Dawkins within the New Atheism movement, or, potentially, his own individual scientific theories. But Dawkins does not even come close to the same level of prominence in New Atheism as Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad do in Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively, and that very much calls into question the validity of any comparisons between him and them. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it also shouldn't be a puff piece. I saw only about three sentences in that entire article of any criticism.  Balanced doesn't mean equal amount of content for support and criticism of a subject, but it also doesn't mean suppression of legitimate criticism because someone likes the guy.  If Kazemita1 has something legitimate to add, it should be given appropriate consideration; not disregarded because we already have 3 sentences.--v/r - TP 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Userpage: User:Pepesjengglot
I deleted the original version of this page last year as a BLP attack page. I'm now thinking that may have just been bad translating/self analysis by the user. The new version is rather perplexing. See the user contrib history. I'm half inclined to delete it and half inclined to think that would be a bitey over-reaction. But on the other hand, is bite really apposite when dealing with someone who's been around for a year and contributed only to their own userspace? Views? --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't speak of the old version but the new version looks to me just like an autobiography in both Indonesian (which I can partially understand due to some mutual intelligibility with Malay) and English. No comment on what to do with it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE seems appropriate. Either that or just ignore them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing of a straw poll
Hi,

can a non involved admin please close this straw poll and decide if a consensus has been reached Talk:Rangers_F.C. this will help move this major dispute on Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding Quality (FL) to the Assessment table
In WikiProject_Israel, I have added the FL tag and created the categories like the FA does but when putting the class=FL in the talk page of the articles I only get ??? (like in here Talk:List of Israeli football champions) and an empty note in the FL-class category. After using the toolserver updater the FL was removed. Can an admin see what I did wrong and add FL correctly to the Assessment of WikiProject_Israel so we have it aswell. PS: I have added it here cuz I belive it might be something only an Admin can add. – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. The page to be amended is semi-prot, so no admin is required. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proabably not the right place, but I'll say it anyway.
This article - which I do not how it was redirected, says this: List of Earth-crossing minor planets This is incorrect, as there are no minor planets crossing the Earth. It should say List of Earth-cross asteroids. I don't know how to redirect because I've been gone so long. Is this vandalism, because looking at the history nothing tells me about it. --Hinata talk   00:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * This article says, "A minor planet is an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun that is neither a dominant planet nor originally classified as a comet. Minor planets can be dwarf planets, asteroids, trojans, centaurs, Kuiper belt objects, and other trans-Neptunian objects." There are no dwarf planets which cross Earth's orbit, but there are many minor planets which do. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Incredibly wrong. By your logic, there are many millions of them. --Hinata talk   00:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * And by your logic, the IAU is wrong. Do you have a reliable source for a competing definition? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Exactly what was it I said that was "[i]ncredibly wrong"? All of that is verifiably true. I don't like the IAU much, either, but Wikipedia (and the vast majority of the scientific community) has chosen to use their terms and definitions as standards. Unless you have a suggestion for improving the project, this entire discussion is pointless. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding username block practice
A WP:BLP article of a (circa) 17-year-old that I'm watching has recently been edited by a new user account whose name matches the name of the subject of the article. The edits do not indicate to me that this is likely an attempt at impersonation; they are attempts at noting the exact year of birth (which has not been reported in reliable sources and is therefore not in the article). My question is, what is our current practice with regard to WP:IMPERSONATE? Do we routinely username-block all accounts with an username that matches that of an article subject, or only in cases where we suspect impersonation? (I'm not indicating the name of the user or the article here so as not to have to notify the user, which may confuse them if they are the article subject.)  Sandstein   21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I say let another administrator handle blocking if there is to be blocking. You're far too close on this one, and would be adopting too many rôles if you blocked the user accounts as well.  For what it's worth, the subject's precise date of birth is verifiable, and is what both of the accounts are changing it to.  See Margaret Fuhrer's profile on page 72 of the April 2012 Dance Spirit magazine.  Personally, given that neither account has been disruptive, and have actually (given what turns out to be the case) attempted to provide more information that is verifiable, I'd suggest that there's room for being nice to the article subject, here.  Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I can't find the date of birth in the online version of the article you mention. If you have a source that contains it, can you add it to the article? I agree with the rest of what you said, but that doesn't answer my question about what our practice with respect to WP:IMPERSONATE is.  Sandstein   06:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Use . It has the complete page.  Or buy the magazine back issue, of course.  ☺  Uncle G (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this has now allowed me to insert the sourced date of birth.  Sandstein   07:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin but my old experience at WP:BLPN is if someone said they were person whoever the subject of an article (or someone else like a parent or friend) we usually just accepted what they said at face value and tried to help them as best possible without blocking them (unless they did something else to merit a block). Occasionally someone may have suggested they verify their identity but I don't think this was common, it didn't actually generally make much difference to what we could do given our requirement for sources. Although if the info wasn't that well sourced, but was sourced and the person claiming to be the subject suggested it was wrong or otherwise wanted it removed some people may have been more willing if the person verified their identity. Sometimes (well one time that I remember) we did get people apparently impersonating or trolling (e.g. they claimed something of the subject) but all evidence suggested they were lying) but generally I think it was felt unnecessary to worry too much about particularly with not that well knwon subjects. (If say Obama or Bill Gates or Britney Spears came to complain, we may be more suspicious.) AFAIK we did the same even if the person's username had part of their allegedly real name. I haven't really been involved recently but looking at BLPN, from what I can tell this still seems to be going on. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You need an actual suspicion of a problem, not just a match on the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Judge a user not on the color of their username, but on the content of their character. -- Avanu (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It all comes down to cases. For example:  I've been dealing with Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.   claims to be the subject and  claims to be his girlfriend.  I've not blocked them for impersonation because that would be unproductive.  (I've not blocked the both of them and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for a nine month long edit war at Cliff Stanford, either, because I stopped the edit war, the purpose of such blocks, in another way.)  Although I don't know that they are who they claim to be, their actions are consistent with being Wikipedia novices who are who they say they are.  I'd rather that their first brush with the Wikipedia community at large, rather than just one person, not be an immediate Kafkaesque block for having the straightforwardness to state who they are. On the other hand, there are cases where the accounts behave rather differently to M. Stanford and M. Wrigley.  They are dishonest, disruptive, wikilawyering, combative, and in general just smell wrong.  Experienced Wikipedians do, as said above, judge upon behaviour, and bad behaviour does add up to an impersonation block.  Having the name of a real person is a contributory factor.  If you want another way to think of this: We don't, in practice, block solely for having the account name of a real person.  We block for doing so where it brings the impersonated person into disrepute or where our experience/information tells us that this isn't who it is claimed to be.  Witness the discussion of  at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110 for an example of such decision making. This is why the policy says "may".  It's a warning to the account holders that this may happen.  But it's not a requirement upon administrators.  We are expected to consider the case at hand, the circumstances and the consequences, and decide whether it's an appropriate course of action; rather than apply a rule like thoughtless robots.  I actually did this for the two accounts that are not named above.  I considered the circumstances and the consequences, came to the conclusion that these people are very likely who they claim to be and are Wikipedia novices whose interests lie in what is said about them in a biography of a living person, and decided that I wouldn't be exercising my blocking tool, and that Sandstein's exercise of the talking tool was quite the right thing to do instead. There are numerous people who straightforwardly log in under their own names here.  It's not wrong to do that, and we do not have a rule that forces us to make their lives difficult to no purpose. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue with Late Spring
I'm concerned about the behaviour of user User:Dylanexpert on the article Late Spring. For example, the user sent the article to the "peer review" process without the required notification on the talk page. The user also reverts any change which is not made by himself, including a reversion of removal of inappropriate fan reworking links on youtube, and a removal of addition of sourced and referenced material. Perhaps the material is not appropriate in some way, but he does not respond to my concerns on the talk page but simply reverts. I would be happy enough if he would at least justify himself, but he will not discuss it. This is not so much an edit war as a serious WP:OWN concern about this user's attitude to the article, which he seems to view as his personal thing. I have pointed him to WP:OWN article repeatedly without effect and am thus reporting it here. Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The accusations are unjustified in this case. The peer review notice appears quite clearly at the top of the talk page indicating that the peer review is now archived. It is true that I did temporarily revert the removal of the fan-reworking links, but I ultimately let the removal stand when the person objecting convinced me that the links were inappropriate. It is simply not true that I undid all changes other people have made to the article and indeed I have incorporated virtually all the suggestions made during the peer review process. I was in the very process of responding to JoshuSasori's comments on the talk page, when he posted the above, so his claim that I *refused* to debate him is simply not true. The problem is that JoshuSasori heavily edited the article on the fine Japanese writer and director Kaneto Shindo and appears obsessed by the idea of including quotes by him in the Late Spring article, whether appropriate or not. He included a long circumstantial description by Shindo of the daily working methods of Ozu and his screenwriter which may interest him (or even myself), but which I'm sure most readers will reject as padded and irrelevant detail. He included the single-sentence paragraph "Director and scriptwriter Kaneto Shindo describes it [Late Spring] as his favourite of all Ozu's films," a passage which sticks out like a sore thumb. Point 3 under Actions applicable to typical behavior relevant to WP:OWN states "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions." I have not discouraged but openly encouraged others to comment and contribute, including JoshuSasori, whom, if my memory serves me, I directly invited to review and comment on Late Spring. You may observe from JoshuSasori's own talk page that he can be very combative (e.g., "Re: Harakiri (1962) edit"). So this is indeed an edit war and not a case under which WP:OWN applies. Thank you kindly. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion after failure to discuss
I do a lot of dispute resolution at 3O and DRN. All current DR forums require talk page discussions prior to requesting DR and requests are routinely rejected when they are made without prior discussion. It is not uncommon, however, to find a discussion where one editor has attempted to start discussion in good faith, with solid requests on the article talk page and, often, requests or notices on the other editor's talk page as well (I'll call that editor the "requester") but with no response of any kind from the other editor (who I'll call the "reverter"). (It's also common to find that the reverter also does not use edit summaries.) If the requesting editor can get nothing out of the reverter and cannot get DR, what are they to do? By the time a complaint at WP:EWN is appropriate, the requester is more often than not vulnerable to a WP:BOOMERANG. In many, if not most, cases page protection will not solve the problem because the problem will simply resume after the protection goes away. I made an attempt (see here and here) to modify WP:RFC to allow it to be used to try to get community input in this situation, but that attempt was reverted by a user who believes that continuing to revert after a discussion request has been made is either (I'm afraid that I cannot quite follow his logic, so I'm not quite sure which is right) itself a blocking offense which can be reported to WP:SPI WP:ANI or, alternatively, somehow immunizes the requester from accusations of edit warring. Is he right? If not, what should a requester be told to do? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm following this correctly, and I know you said you have trouble following it yourself, so I'm not blaming you, you're asking if it is acceptable for someone to engage in reversion after a discussion request is made, right? By "discussion request," I'm assuming you mean RfC? Regarding the claim that reversion is subject to investigation at WP:SPI, frankly, I don't see that making any sense whatsoever. Regarding the contention that discussion immunizes someone from being subject to edit warring claims, I don't see that as being necessarily valid, although it might be useful to know the situation before the discussion started.
 * I know this isn't necessarily a lot of help, and I'm sorry about that, but it would really help to know some more of the relevant details. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being somewhat obtuse. No, by "discussion request" I mean this situation, stated here in its simplest form: A makes an article edit, B reverts, A requests discussion on the talk page and drops a talkback on B's talk page, B makes no response of any kind. (A more typical situation is this: A makes an article edit, B reverts with no edit summary, A reverts with some explanation in the edit summary, B reverts with no edit summary, A reverts with an edit summary requesting discussion on the talk page and explains their edit on the talk page, B reverts with no discussion and no edit summary, A files a dispute resolution request at 3O or DRN, A's request is rejected because there's not been any talk page discussion.) Is A immune from EW'ing (presuming that B isn't reverting for a 3RR exemption reason) or does A have cause for a SPI an ANI complaint? If not, what should A be told to do? For a current example (though I don't want to focus on it) see This is PiL. Sorry about the reference to SPI; that should have been ANI, and I've fixed it above. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) PS: I don't think that A is immune nor do I think that there is a complaint to be made to ANI, though I think that it should be a reportable offense. As it is right now, unfortunately, in light of WP:CONS I think that A is simply out of luck, he has no recourse, and his edit cannot go in. I don't think that's right or the way that it should be, but I do think that's the way it is. — TM 17:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that A is, basically, screwed out of luck, as you put it. There might be reasonable cause, depending on the specific circumstances of the edit war, to maybe question whether B is trying to game the system, or might be seen as engaging in willfully disruptive editing, given the lack of communication, which could maybe give cause to raise questions here or elsewhere about that behavior. I can also see how it might be useful to add something to WP:EW to specifically cover non-communicative reversions. But, right now, things being the way they are, there is a very good chance A would be subject to sanctions of some sort, depending on the disposition of the admin in question. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who refuses to engage after a reasonable request for an explanation is not acting in good faith. They should not be allowed to "win" through attrition. If they will not engage in a discussion, the other user should attempt to engage other parties in discussion so that a consensus may be reached. If the reverter doesn't deign to particpate in that discussion that is their problem, and if they keep revert warring later it will only end with blocking. However, edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. Unless you are dealing with blatant vandalism there is no "right" in an edit war, anyone who engages in one is wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * A should just find someone in Category:Sensible admins, who will tell B that if they revert without discussion again, they will be blocked for disruption. Actually finding someone in Category:Sensible admins is left as an exercise for the reader. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll tell you the solution I reached a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that in one-vs-one disputes, victory goes to the stubbornest party.  The only way to get anywhere against an uncooperative editor without being even more uncooperative is to convert it to an n-vs-one dispute, where the isolated editor always loses if the other editors are competent.  So, whenever I get into difficulties with an editor who won't play ball, I go straight to the appropriate WikiProject and post a message on its talk page, asking for additional eyes. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was what I was trying to do with the RFC exception (not that RFC doesn't have it's own set of problems). Maybe I'll try it again, but the WikiProject idea is a good one, too. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not what you were doing with the RFC exception. The language was not written like that asking for other input in a relevant wikiproject talk page; it is quite standard, and not obligatory prerequisite for initiating an and rfc.Curb Chain (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, if the person files a discussion on the talk page, this makes them eligible for a DRN file. Problem solved.Curb Chain (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) ::::This is not what you were doing with the RFC exception. The language was not written like that asking for other input in a relevant wikiproject talk page is quite standard and not obligatory prerequisite for initiating and rfc.Curb Chain (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC) And if indeed the requester is vulnerable to WP:BOOMERANG, he is probably not be being scrupulous in his editing conduct.Curb Chain (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid it does not. The DRN instructions say, "[This] is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums - but the issue must have been discussed extensively on a talk page - not just through edit summaries." (Emphasis added.) (Until recently it said "substantial discussion" rather than "discussed extensively", but that's the same idea.) 3O says, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." (Emphasis added.) Neither formulation would permit a single editor's talk page explanation or discussion request to be sufficient to start a case and, indeed, requests at those forums are ordinarily removed or rejected when there has been no back-and-forth discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits
Occasionally, someone will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? I imagine that a revert will almost certainly start a (brief) edit war if the user is paying attention. Of course, it might happen anyway if anyone else is paying attention :) —[ Alan  M  1  (talk) ]— 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mnap25
This user has been frequently updating the statistics on baseball pages without bothering to update the date. This makes it harder to know when the stats in the infobox were updated and makes the articles appear more outdated than they really are. Here are this user's four most recent edits, 1, 2, 3, and 4. There are plenty of other examples of his failure to update the date. Furthermore, the issue has been mentioned on his talk page three times, but to the best of my knowledge he has made no response. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That has the effect of introducing errors into the text, since, for example, Harrison's record was not 42-24 as of 15 July. I would say that this isn't a big issue except for the user's apparent unwillingness to discuss; even good-faith addition of errors is problematic and needs to stop.  Accordingly, I've built off the three previous notes and left a final warning (seeing this as being akin to the various levels of vandalism warnings) that further edits of this pattern will result in a block.  Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your intervention. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheoA/Three.js
This user page contains mainspace categories that goes against WP:USERNOCAT. Because the page title ends with .js it generates the user page as a javascript page so I'm unable to edit and remove the categories. --Mika1h (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has the thought even crossed your mind of asking them about it or at least informing them you were asking for admin intervention? Beeblebrox (talk)|
 * Who is "them"? --Mika1h (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:TheoA, of course. dangerous panda 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a notice on the talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you discuss the issue with them first, before coming here so that they could fix it? AN/ANI are last resort, after you have attempted to resolve it with the user first dangerous panda  17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: and the last post on their talkpage was June 26. That said, they have not edited since June 19 dangerous panda  17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, nevermind then, I didn't realize this was a major issue that needs discussion. P.S. Why are you all using plural form, it's confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.P.S I had left a notice on User talk:TheoA/Three.js. --Mika1h (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Always best to discuss on their usertalk, not the the subpage talk. Oh, and "they" (and therefore "their") is singular. dangerous panda  17:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, "they" and "their" take plural verbs; use "he" or "she" or "s/he" or something like that if you want to have subject-verb agreement. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The subpage in question is the original source of an article draft (looks like it was copy/pasted to an actual article). As such, the subpage can be deleted.  Of course, I can't add the MFD tag :-)  dangerous panda  17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we need yet another noticeboard (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Don't snap at me, or WP:ANDSAM?) where people can ask for simple admin help with something, without being accused of dragging someone else to AN or ANI. AN or ANI should be a last resort for conflicts, but don't land so hard on the guy for asking for simple admin help here.  He's not trying to get TheoA in trouble. When I run across article categories in userspace drafts, I usually comment them out myself, and leave a note for the editor, rather than asking the editor to do it themselves.  No discussion needed, and no editor has ever complained about this. All Mika1h is asking is an admin to do something he would usually do himself, but can't because the userspace draft is accidentally marked as a .js page. I'm sure he'll leave the explanatory note on TheoA's talk page if an admin will do the commenting out. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the user in question has removed the text; I think we're fine here :). I agree with Floquenstein that we need to get a lot better at assuming good faith of the people who bring issues to AN. Now, I understand why AN and ANI are places of last resort - practically-speaking, it's because they're hellish, dark, satanic mills filled with snark being used as an area denial weapon. But at least part of that stems from people telling users off for bringing other contributors to these venues - perhaps if people were nicer about it, their reason for being annoyed by it would partly solve itself? Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI Fix
I opened an SPI and right after I did it I realized that I had not opened under the sockmaster's user name but rather one of his old sockpuppets. I'm not sure if I can just move the stuff over and set the old case to 'closed' or if it even makes a difference. Can someone who understands SPI better than I please fix this if necessary? The SPI is currently listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Thonos but should be at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso. Thanks! Sædon talk 08:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it over and did a histmerge. Pretty sure it's all good now. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw that, thank you :). Sædon talk  22:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A. B. Colton
I've currently got a text file with an article on A. B. Colton; however, I cannot create A. B. Colton. It isn't protected it appears to be on a blacklist of sorts. I also can't create User:Ryan Vesey/A. B. Colton. What is my best solution. Can an administrator make it so I can create the page? Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I can't create it because colton appears at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that colton was added to the page by MuZemike with this edit. I left a note on his talk page. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Created the userspace page for you. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted on my talk page, I removed the entry from the blacklist, as I know why I added it, and the abuse regarding that entry is no longer there. --MuZemike 07:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Corey Cogdell
Good morning chaps - it seems there is a bit of a kerfuffle brewing on the old social networks about this young lady and her prediliction for shooting zebras - a few extra pairs of eyes on the article might not go amiss, there's already been a couple of rather nasty comments inserted. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

The India-Pakistan case is supplemented as follows: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed."

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Discuss this

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits
Occasionally, someone will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? I imagine that a revert will almost certainly start a (brief) edit war if the user is paying attention. Of course, it might happen anyway if anyone else is paying attention :) (2nd try - is this the right place?) —[ Alan  M  1  (talk) ]— 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only relevant rule I can think of is "use common English". In this case, this would apparently imply using "Persian Gulf" or simply "the Gulf" in most situations, depending on context, as the "Arabian Gulf" usage has apparently not gained much currency outside the Arab world itself. I'm aware some editors have invested the issue with a very overblown ideological significance, spending a lot of time arguing why "Arabian Gulf" is historically wrong and evil and why its use must not only be avoided but actively deprecated, but that's really nonsensical and beside the point. What counts is just established usage in English. I don't think we've ever had any kind of formalized decision procedure over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article is at Persian Gulf. Articles should link directly to the other article, and very rarely is there good reason to pipelink a proper name with another proper name. Any disputes about what to call the entity being talked about, in this case the Gulf, should be discussed at that page, and solved at that page. This isn't explicit in any policy, but seems a logical way to preserve NPOV and consistency. There is a precedent; Sea of Japan, which is called that throughout the wiki (although there is an odd clause to note it's also called the East Sea on articles specifically relating to Korea). CMD (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just removed some pipelinks today which seemed to be pov (on another subject entirely). Piping shouldn't be done as a way to get around an article's name. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected talk pages for deletion
I just looked at some sample NA-class articles from WP:BIO project, and they all look to me like talk pages of redirects. As far as I know, it is pointless to tag those within projects; and some I noted have improper classifications (as stubs and such). If there is a small number of articles that should be retained (and off the top of my head I cannot think of what could be classified as NA, which seems like a pointless use for a blank page classification), a deeper review may be needed, but as things stand, I'd be tempted to say that this entire category is due for a mass deletion, and we should probably look at other NA-class articles, with anything tagged as NA in the future coming up for a review for speedy deletion alert (or, if nobody can present any arguments for keeping this category, simply coming up for speedy deletion). PS. To be clear: I am not suggesting we delete the redirects, just their talk pages, which are useless and falsely inflate the article counts for WikiProjects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some projects like to keep track of redirects incase someone changes it to redirect elsewhere or incase someone puts it up for deletion. The project tags often work in conjunction with automated bots to warn the project that this has happened. As such some projects do very much rely on these even if you find them useless. I would also note NA pages can also be anything that isn't ranked by the project in question as it stands for Non-Article. For example in a project I am involved with anything that isn't an article gets tagged NA. Such as templates, images, project pages etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that sometimes those pages were articles at one point and did have discussions. We generally don't ever delete a talk page if the assosciated content is still here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric mit 1992 Blacklight Power
A new editor, User_talk:Eric mit 1992, (125 edits) appears to be wikilawyering (just look at the last 5-6 threads) at Talk:Blacklight_Power, a company based on pseudoscience. Not sure how to proceed. Any admins or experienced editors want to have a look and provide any advice, or the best way to handle it? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Attempts to engage on the users talk page did not go well:. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC) The editor just got blocked for 24 hours for 9 reverts as well: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring; the topic is under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alterations

 * An editor who also posted to Talk:Rangers F.C. got lost on the way to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and thought that it was here. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Syria
Could we have a few more eyes on Syria and related articles? Obviously there's quite the dispute about them at the moment in real life, and a couple of users (one whose entire talkpage just says "FREE SYRIA!" have managed to slowly edit war in their preferred infobox with no consensus on the talkpage (and most of those reverts, along with others, were without edit summaries). As well as steady admin hands, a few more opinions on talk wouldn't go amiss either. CMD (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Protected: see section "Question about protection" below. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sophisticated template vandalism; need admin help

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While I was editing St. John, Indiana, someone vandalised a template that's on the page to blank the entire page. Since I was only on the page for a few minutes, it's definitely one of the template edits below, which I copied from RecentChanges:

(diff | hist). . Template:Albanians; 15:59. . (-33) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (For consistency and avoiding redirect.) (diff | hist). . Template:Sidebar; 15:59. . (+330) . . Frietjes (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 505116282 by Ham Cork Fest (talk)) (diff | hist). . Template:ConvertAbbrev/ISO 3166-1/alpha-2; 15:59. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (new designation for Kosovo) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Db-negublp/doc; 15:58. . (+2,083) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Substitute - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:New York Jets roster navbox; 15:58. . (-24) . . The Writer 2.0 (talk | contribs) (Otah trade voided) (diff | hist). . Template:Sidebar; 15:58. . (-330) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (change) (diff | hist). . Template:TOC top; 15:58. . (-598) . . Frietjes (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 505116024 by Ham Cork Fest (talk)) (diff | hist). . Template:NRHP style; 15:58. . (+574) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (more parameters) (diff | hist). . Template:New York Jets roster; 15:57. . (+23) . . The Writer 2.0 (talk | contribs) (Vacant) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/eng&cell-id2dot-id; 15:57. . (+1) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Abbr; 15:57. . (+427) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (minor switch in coding) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's handball game B5; 15:57. . (+6) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's field hockey game A6; 15:57. . (+45) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:URL; 15:57. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (remove excess whitespace after #titleparts) (diff | hist). . m Template:Valrep; 15:56. . (-40) . . RioHondo (talk | contribs) (Renamed per Philippine LGU naming convention. See WP:MOSPHIL.) (diff | hist). . Template:Designation/colour; 15:56. . (+599) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (change color settings) (diff | hist). . Template:New York Jets roster; 15:56. . (-41) . . The Writer 2.0 (talk | contribs) (Otah trade voided) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:56. . (+51) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:TOC top; 15:56. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (changing tr to wikitable tr, documentation modification) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-u1/log/doc; 15:55. . (-34) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Remove template - doesn't look like it applies here) (diff | hist). . Template:Infobox settlement/impus; 15:55. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (*/ Usage */ expand usage info) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:55. . (+1) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Album ratings; 15:55. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (add up to rev25score, per request) (diff | hist). . Template:Coat of arms; 15:55. . (+32) . . Ssolbergj (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Flag usage advice; 15:55. . (+750) . . Kevin McE (talk | contribs) (At the moment, not proposing for use, simply for discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Icons#A related debate is raging elsewhere at this stage) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:55. . (+3) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:Airlines of Bangladesh; 15:54. . (0) . . Ahnaaf (talk | contribs) (Adding planned airline section) (diff | hist). . Template:Bio icon2; 15:54. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (#ifeq) (diff | hist). . m Template:Bio icon; 15:54. . (+598) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (#ifeq) (diff | hist). . m Template:Airlines of Bangladesh; 15:54. . (+83) . . Ahnaaf (talk | contribs) (Adding planned airline section) (diff | hist). . Template:New York Red Bulls squad; 15:54. . (+71) . . UncleTupelo1 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Redirect template; 15:54. . (+599) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (*/ Template category */ fix small error) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:53. . (+1) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-u1/log; 15:53. . (+75) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Switch to template - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:Did you know nominations/James Huckle; 15:53. . (+764) . . BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) (promoted to prep 4) (diff | hist). . m Template:Arka Gdynia squad; 15:53. . (-531) . . Marekchelsea (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Did you know nominations/Schleswig horse; 15:53. . (+127) . . Montanabw (talk | contribs) (Format alt 1 hook (I'm a co-nom, not a reviewer, needs a reviewer)) (diff | hist). . Template:Infobox settlement/metric; 15:53. . (+608) . . Ham Cork Fest (talk | contribs) (*/ Usage */ expand section information) (diff | hist). . Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4; 15:53. . (+210) . . BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) (+1) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-u1/log/doc; 15:53. . (-6) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Formatting) (diff | hist). . m Template:Valenzuela City; 15:52. . (+49) . . RioHondo (talk | contribs) (Renamed per Philippine LGU naming convention. See WP:MOSPHIL.) (diff | hist). . Template:Le Mans FC squad; 15:52. . (+14) . . Footballfollower89 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:52. . (+82) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2008 Summer Olympics men's volleyball game C2; 15:52. . (+56) . . Leesw616 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:51. . (-127) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (rm err check again) (diff | hist). . Template:Developments in Sri Lanka; 15:51. . (+3) . . CoolGin (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Db-u1/log/doc; 15:51. . (+1,794) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Substitute - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:2008 Summer Olympics men's volleyball game C1; 15:50. . (+27) . . Leesw616 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Did you know nominations/Schleswig horse; 15:50. . (+248) . . Montanabw (talk | contribs) (Alt 1 hook) (diff | hist). . Template:Coat of arms; 15:50. . (+32) . . Ssolbergj (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:Braille cell/core; 15:49. . (+143) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (err check) (diff | hist). . Template:Zendaya; 15:48. . (-8) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/testcases; 15:48. . (+10) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's volleyball group A standings; 15:48. . (+4) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-gfdl; 15:48. . (-23) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Switch to template - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:RT programs; 15:48. . (0) . . Yk Yk Yk (talk | contribs) (update) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's volleyball game A5; 15:47. . (+137) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/testcases; 15:47. . (-10) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-gfdl/doc; 15:47. . (-5) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Formatting) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Db-gfdl/doc; 15:46. . (+2,321) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Substitute - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . m Template:RMS Titanic; 15:46. . (+63) . . MatthewHaywood (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's volleyball game A5; 15:46. . (+56) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:FC Dynamo Kyiv squad; 15:46. . (+59) . . T-resh (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:Tourette syndrome; 15:45. . (-45) . . QuasyBoy (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:45. . (-8) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . m Template:Colonial Governors of Rhode Island; 15:44. . (+52) . . Robert 68 (talk | contribs) (ad german language = de:Vorlage:Gouverneure der Rhode Island Kolonie) (diff | hist). . Template:Braille cell/core; 15:44. . (-135) . . DePiep (talk | contribs) (rm err check) (diff | hist). . m Template:Philippine legislative districts; 15:44. . (-7) . . RioHondo (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Zendaya; 15:43. . (+74) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:Pittsburgh Pirates roster; 15:43. . (+1) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:Footer Olympic Champions Judo Half Middleweight Men; 15:42. . (+77) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:KidsTVBlocksUSA; 15:42. . (-11) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (ABC Kids was listed twice (once by itself only and once combined with "Disney's One Saurday Morning". Alphabetically "Toonami" should probably come before "Toonami on Kids WB".) (diff | hist) . . Template:Coat of arms; 15:42 . . (+24) . . Ssolbergj (talk | contribs) (diff | hist) . . Template:Coat of arms; 15:42 . . (-127) . . Ssolbergj (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 505114001 by Ssolbergj (talk)) (diff | hist) . . Template:Coat of arms; 15:41 . . (+127) . . Ssolbergj (talk | contribs) (diff | hist) . . Template:Texas Rangers roster; 15:41 . . (-9) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist) . . m Template:Philippine legislative districts; 15:40 . . (-101) . . RioHondo (talk | contribs) (diff | hist) . . Template:Le Mans FC squad; 15:40 . . (+20) . . Footballfollower89 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist) . . Template:Db-fpcfail; 15:40 . . (+75) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Switch to template - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist) . . Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's field hockey game A6; 15:39. . (+47) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's handball group B standings; 15:39. . (0) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-fpcfail/doc; 15:39. . (-7) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Formatting) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's handball group B standings; 15:39. . (0) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238