User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

• ♪ Main
• Talk
• To do
• Tools
• Contributions
• Userboxes
• Awards
• Email me ♪

Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Accusatory comment?

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do? I hope I am not bothering but I had a question about this comment. Well, it hurts. I don't know why, but it badly hurts. Is it allowed in Wikipedia? And is there anything I can do about it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, kid. I checked your contrib log to see how you reacted and found you here. It is natural that the more you contribute to Wikipedia, the more you grow vulnerable to personal attacks. But that is just the minor reason. The major contributing factor is that it is not the first time you are personally attacked in that discussion. User:A Quest For Knowledge did quite a complete job of it. (Not just in the AfD page.) Now, admin are given the duty of removing such comments, warn the committing party and block him for repeat offenses. But let me tell you a piece of fact: It is not gonna happen... Although, since your message reads like a request for advice, I think you know it. So, here is the advice: Take a day off or unwatch the page. These articles never have many readers if you don't AfD them and eventually end up deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, and sorry for the delay in my reply (I've been away). As for what you can do, that is explained in better words than I can muster at WP:NPA. As to this specific case, I agree with Fleet Command that no administrative action is necessary here, but the comment was certainly not a helpful one. I'll leave a note on Krawunsel's talk page, and hopefully that will be all that is necessary to avoid any similar comments in the future. Let me know if there are any other issues you would like help with, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe I said a few things I shouldn't have said given the sensitivity of some people. But what goes totally missing is that in the very same discussion a person accused me to be Hitler-like, and that way, way tops what I said. But it looks like everyone who comments on this has missed that part. It's interesting how people see the small things but miss the real big ones. Thus, I couldn't help noticing that the discussion got somewhat lopsided. The user, Ahunt, has so far failed to apologize. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look pretty bad, I agree. I don't think Fleet Command intended to compare you to Hitler, though. It seems to me that they were trying to compare your comment to the behaviour outlined in our essay WP:HITLER, which isn't really about Hitler at all. (It only has the label because of the reference to Godwin's law at the end.) I've left a message on their talk page, though, so hopefully you can get the story from the horse's mouth rather than relying on my guesswork. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Need advice on frequent reverting editor

I'm rather troubled by the behavior of a certain editor - to keep this post from being an accusation, I shall refer to him as Editor A. A day ago, I found some vandalism on an article. Checking the history, I found that the vandalism had been placed there a few weeks before by two editors, reverted some days later by an IP address editor - and then immediately reinstated by Editor A, with an edit summary which labeled the IP editor's work as "vandalism". Assuming good faith, I reverted Editor A's edit and left him a note on his talk page explaining that his edit had reinstated vandalism, and advising him to be more careful with his reverts and vandalism accusations in the future. Editor A made a very snippish reply along the lines of "So what, I made one mistake in my life", utterly missing the idea that reverting someone's edit without even a rudimentary check on the contents of that edit is against WP's basic principles, as is accusing someone of vandalism without cause.

Since it was clear that I couldn't make any progress with Editor A even if I were good at keeping my temper, I dropped the matter. However, I still feel worried, and today I took a look at his contributions to see if careless reverts like this are anything like a habit for him. I found he's made over 50 edits in the last half hour alone - nearly all of them either reverts of IP address editors or warning notes placed on those editors' talk pages. I appreciate that reverting bad edits is almost as important as making good ones, but the incredible prolificacy of Editor A's reverts (to say nothing of his obvious preference for reverting IP address editors) suggests to me that he's taking no more care with them than with the one I reverted. Is there something I should be doing to help see that Editor A's behavior is corrected, or would it be best if I just let it go?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NukeofEarl. I had a look at the exchange in question (it was pretty easy to find it from your contribution history), and I think I could easily have made the same mistake. It's obvious if you know the subject matter, but for me I couldn't have known the IP vandalism reversion from the original IP vandalism without looking it up in the sources. It's true that it is important to be careful and not to rush while using semi-automated editing tools like Huggle, and that Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply just as much to people using these tools as to editors using the normal site. But it's also important to cut users some slack and realise that a mistake might just be a mistake.

You say that you were assuming good faith in your message, but that isn't completely true, because you assumed that the other editor was habitually careless, whereas to me it seemed much more likely to have been an honest mistake. I would have said something like, "Hi, I noticed [http:www.example.com this] revert that you made with Huggle, but it wasn't actually vandalism. The original vandalism was actually added in [http:www.example.com this] edit by another IP. I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make though, so no worries." You should always assume the best possible motive that fits the evidence that you have - that allows the other person to save face, and has the best possible chance of getting them to learn from the experience. If your message makes the other person annoyed, it's pretty unlikely that they'll learn anything from the experience, and much more likely that they'll just think you told them off unnecessarily.

As for the rapid rate of edits, this is very easy to do with tools such as Huggle, and 50 edits in 30 minutes is not at all unusual. This is how users like Koavf can make one million edits. The editing rate isn't a problem unless there is also a high error rate. As for the reversions mostly being of IPs, that is because 80% of vandalism is caused by IPs (according to Wikipedia:IPs are human too). So if there are four vandalism reverts of IPs for every vandalism revert of a registered user, that accords perfectly with our vandalism statistics and doesn't merit any special attention. There is also the fact (from the same essay) that over 80% of IP edits are not vandalism, but this isn't going to show up when someone is doing recent changes patrol, because the edits by those 80% of IPs are left untouched. I don't think there's anything to be worried about, personally, but if you are still concerned feel free to email me with diffs, and I'll see if any I think any more action is warranted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply; you've definitely eased my mind. I still don't like the practice of reverting edits once every 30 seconds, as it seems to me that if you're unfamiliar with the subject matter, a bit of fact-checking should go into an edit before deciding to revert, particularly as we already have editing bots making such snap decisions. But I am aware of such editing tools, and if you believe that alone would explain what I've seen of Editor A's actions, I can accept that as an answer. While I could review his contributions one-by-one to determine how high his error rate is, to be frank, I have better ways to use my WP editing time. Just one clarification, though: I don't know where you got the idea that I was assuming Editor A was being habitually careless, but I definitely wasn't thinking that at the time. It was his response, and particularly the fact that his concern was solely for his pride rather than for the consequences of his actions, which made me suspect it might be habitual.

Anyways, thanks again, and I'll keep what you've told me in mind for the future.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake about the "habitually careless" remark - sorry about that. And I'm glad you're feeling more at ease now. And by the way, if you want to check out the guidelines about using tools like Huggle, you can have a look at WP:RCP if you haven't read it already. I'd even recommend getting involved in some anti-vandalism work yourself, as that's really the best way to see what's involved in it. (And another by the way - Editor A is actually of the female persuasion, which might explain at least some of her reaction.) Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to follow up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius

Hi I have read your message, i also agree that i have been warned for uploading copyrighted materials in Wikipedia. But as you know that i am new to Wikipedia (i joined 3-4 months before as an editor) so i don't know anything on posting torrent links is an offense. OK thanks for your message.

Another thing, what you are doing in User:Codename Lisa talk page ??? Do you know her ???

Please reply  Himanis Das   talk  16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know that there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia at first, so don't worry if you don't get everything right first time. It's just that copyright violations can have legal implications for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we tend to be strict in deleting copyright violations. As for Codename Lisa, I welcomed her to Wikipedia and I've helped her out a couple of times, but that's as much as I know her. It's a wiki-friendship, I suppose. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon Wiesenthal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Simon Wiesenthal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments

Hi. I'll have not much time to type anything very much on WP for the next few days, but I'm just posting to let you know I've seen your comment on my talkpage and yes, it was not at all great of me to have made the response you highlight. I'd already realised that, after reflection.

The discussion does seem to be going a little awry. I don't know what to suggest overall in terms of a way forward, but I guess if nothing else I can probably help by keeping my cool in future. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

question

hi. I wanted to ask you, is there a way finalize the discussion, and get the rfc set up for the jerusalem article? feel free to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of doing next is going through the source summary questions and closing the discussions where appropriate. Hopefully from that we should be able to make a working draft of the source summary statements, although I may need to ask a couple of follow-up questions if there are any points that still remain unclear. I'm planning on doing this in the next day or so, and if I ask any follow-up questions I'll probably leave the discussion open for about a week. Hopefully this should prevent things from taking too long, although I know the process isn't super-quick. In the meantime, it would be a big help if you could leave a drafts statement, which only two editors have submitted so far. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I appreciate it, but I am in agreement with what the other editors have submitted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How to handle this article, dispute resolution style

BP will never be fixed using discussion on it's talk page. Too many people want to push a specific POV and it needs some major POV. I really think the best thing to do is to start from scratch and lose all previous discussion to make it easier for neutral observers to take part in some sort of huge mediation project dealing with the entire article. The problem is, I don't know what the best forum for that is, or how to get it started. Do you know the best way to handle this? Ryan Vesey 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I'd say, without looking at the article at all, is that mediation doesn't work too well with open-ended questions. It's much better at solving specific, well-defined problems. This helps keep mediations on track, and defines a clear end point. Without a clear focus and a clear end point, discussions can go round in circles, and such mediations often end in failure. In any case, the first order of the day for dispute resolution on big, protracted disputes is to identify the specific issues that need resolving. The more specific each point is, the better chance of finding a resolution for them. It is also a good idea to look for any possible underlying conduct issues, as those may be better dealt with using conduct dispute resolution, although that is a judgement call, of course. Also, it's possible to make a clean start on an article, but it isn't possible to lose the previous discussion, just as it isn't possible to "un-see" something. :) Having said that, undergoing mediation can give a fresh perspective on the dispute, which can make resolving it easier. This reply has been a bit vague, but hopefully it can be of some use to you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and TheStrikeΣagle 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Visual perception

Sup, Mr. Stradivarius. I noticed you reversed my input on page regarding Visual perception. That's pretty much okay, considering how my edit was utter vandalism. Thank you for not giving me a warning. Have a nice day.

Peace by Internet Protocol something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.173.155 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm? I did give you a warning. It's here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

76.120.62.132 blocking

Hey, thanks for reverting the edits on Akon discography! 76.120.62.132 has been vandalizing the page since April of 2012 and I have given the IP many warnings about blocking them from editing on the site. It would be better if the IP was blocked now before they makes another false edit. I also posted a section on their talk page about the release date a few days ago and they have yet to reply. Every time I ask them about their edits, nothing is elaborated on. I also replied to your post on their talk page too! Hopefully we can fix this. Have a great day! Contactman7 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's best to wait and see if they respond to the warning first. I don't want to block them if a warning will stop the behaviour. Also, you really need to be careful yourself - rather than just reverting you should ask for page protection at WP:RFPP or request a block at WP:AN3. If you just keep reverting then some might see it as edit warring, and there's a chance you could be blocked yourself. Let me know if there are any more suspect edits from the IP though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! But I have already requested for page protection and I was denied since the page was only being vandalized by one IP. Contactman7 (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flagship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flagship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hey, glad that we could try to work towards some consensus in some of the areas at that rfc. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

by the way, one option might be for us to declare that we were unable to reach a consensus on this. I'm just offering that as one option. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my reply. Work has been keeping me busy for the last couple of days. You have a good point - we could just declare some parts of the current discussion to not have consensus and not include those parts in the RfC. For most of it, though, I think we will be able to draw a reasonable consensus. Also, sorry for the length of time it's taken me to close the latest discussion stage. I'm feeling embarrassed about promising a close in "the next couple of days", one week ago. I'm in the middle of writing it up now, but this is the most complicated and contentious part of what we have done so far, and as I said, I've been busy. But I'm on the case. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

hi there. thanks for your reply. however, sorry, but at this point, my own personal opinions is that things has moved on to a different status. I would really suggest that maybe this process should be discontinued. I feel it has sort of gone off the rails now. i really do appreciate all of your hard work and effort. i don't think it's your fault at all that things have gone this way. however, i really do not see how any RFC we set up no could possibly be workable, considering that several months have now elapsed in this case. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Guess who :-)

Clue number 1: I'm not Sheffno1gunner (Redacted). Clue number 2: I don't like (Redacted) Emeraude but he's upset/offended a lot of people. Clue number 3: I have an unlimited supply of IP addresses so I can show up wherever I want whenever I want.

The question is do you want to play fair? Im not the only IP who has had run ins with [Emeraude and others]! I know of atleast 2others... oh and thats not including sheffno1 (Redacted). You'll never find me ;-) Sooooo do you give up and are you going to allow wikipedia to be a fair place or is wikipedia going to remain a purple free zone dominated by angry (Redacted) LibDems? Ciao 130.88.114.39 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the question is if you want to play fair (i.e. in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines), and if your answer is "no" then my answer will be semi-protection. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia policy should be applied, though, I'll always be willing to help you out. If there are real issues with the articles you want to edit then you will almost always be able to sort them out without having to resort to IP-hopping, sockpuppetry or personal attacks. Indeed, it will be much more effective if you try and sort them out without doing these things. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Notifications

Hey Mr. Stradivarius :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

What's going on with this? -- tariqabjotu 07:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of summarising the consensus from the latest discussions. Sorry that it has been taking me so long. I'm expecting to be able to move on to the next stage of step three some time today or tomorrow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)