< Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

See here for related revision history

Mad props for your work on the RWBY page, sir. I was just trying to get it far enough along that it would no longer be at risk of speedy deletion following its initial creation, but you really knocked it out of the park. Kudos to you, and here's hoping more people take up the cause once the series starts next month. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Internet Barnstar
		Congratulations, The Devil's Advocate, for winning second prize your contributions to the List of Wikipedia controversies! As you requested, $75 has been sent to you. Thanks for all of your hard work! --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

paid editing oh nooooo Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in ur Wikipedias, corrupting it for profit. Muahaha!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ristar. 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) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. I updated the link at the source of my mistake: Template:Cite_doi/10.1061.2F.28ASCE.290733-9399.282008.29134:10.28892.29. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies#RfC: Should the vandalism to Anita Sarkeesian be included in this list?; since you have commented on this discussion, your input would be appreciated. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series). 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) 11:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleting the info then, when I listed the source, shouldn't it be kept on there, and we could just put it from our own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.92.15 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in your own words and it will be fine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit there goes "You edit warred...", you are writing under my post, would it be possible for you to be a little more specific, "Future Perfect you edit warred..." for a moment I wondered whether you were talking to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the indent and my first comment in the sub-section that it is clear enough I am talking to Future.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: Actually, I was a little confused as to who you were talking to, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not confused, the comment makes it pretty clear that he is talking to Fut.Perf. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far only one edit [1] has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).

1. That edit was well-sourced[2]
2. I didn't misrepresent anything, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness DEPOSING before the investigative commission inquiring about the dreadful riots of 2002,
3. Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. But was there any discussion after that? Nope. I was already banned and that statement was unopposed till [3] 08:17, June 23, 2013‎ (UTC), FPaS didn't care to even remove that statement or at least comment on the talk of the article for which I am banned. It was only days after I was banned (at 21:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)) did the other side (i.e. Darkness Shines aka DS) realize that it might be in his advantage to remove that statement per WP:UNDUE (at 08:17, June 23, 2013‎ (UTC)). UNDUE? Isn't UNDUE inherently a subject of personal opinions?
4. But what is worrying is that it's being used to justify a unilateral ban of Six months bestowed on me by an admin who clearly was involved me on Minorities of Pakistan and even threatened to block others who opposed him.

I think they are exaggerating the significance of that one edit. That article is fraught with POV claims, DS put most of them in, he also created a whole article (hazed with cherry-picked sources and distorted claims and one-sided focus on anti-muslim violence) yet he gets unblocked by his pals everytime he is blocked for more than a week. Read what I wrote on the ANI thread about DS. Hopefully you would see what's bugging me the most apart from this ban itself. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in knowing what DS did, I summarized what DS actually did on Jimbo's page.[4] If you want diffs here is a temporary repository. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you compare yourself with DS? Having said that your said edit was entirely kosher as far as I judge it. What now about the ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is a difference in treatment. Certainly, DS seems to get a lot more benefit of the doubt and, as much as many of them would deny it, I suspect it is because of a bias towards him and/or his general position. Basically, many admins may be more inclined towards his view, but still not supportive of his methods. From my own interactions with Future, I do strongly suspect he has a bias on these matters, though not as severe a bias as the participants. His actions tend to favor the side one would expect to be favored by someone with a modern German political outlook.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"DS seems to get a lot more benefit of the doubt" - oh yes, but to call it "doubt" would be a stretch. [5],[6]. Yet we should assume good faith till the end of time. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the following comment help? I tried to initiate a constructive and well-structured discussion with FPAS, but an editor (who was involved with me in past) wrote "Mrt, you wouldn't know neutral if it hit you in the face", does it help? What should I do? Please really comment on that issue and give me a fair appraisal? Am I wrong in saying that there were hazy issues at best concerning that edit in an article that is still rife with POV claims? Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as POV itself? Mr T^(Talk?) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA! I see that you helped out on this page, taking the names of Garfield's children off. An experienced editor from the BLP Noticeboard has told us that he thinks we should honor Garfield's request to remove the family section altogether, since that information isn't necessary for a complete understanding of the topic. That's what I've done. I hope we can get your support on this point. Also, you and I seem to have crossed paths on Race and genetics. It's a small world. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mahāvīra. 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) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fair enough, I completely misattributed the quote; it's from Amy Curtis of We Got This Covered, as seen here^[1] and the Rotten Tomatoes ratings can be seen here ^[2] With these citations can my edit go back in? 80.235.235.153 (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing in negative material to a BLP based off a single review and some Rotten Tomatoes ratings is not appropriate at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting perfectly good pictures? Please stop this as soon as possible. 67.41.180.74 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted by someone else as copyright violations, I am merely removing the red links that were left behind.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who is deleting these pictures? 67.41.180.74 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? The reason for deleting the images is quite valid. Copyright violating material should not be kept.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up a concern at your DYK nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/RWBY. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to thank you for inserting the pictures into articles. Today I wanted to do it myself and I was kindly surprised to see that it has been done. Thank you for that, also in the name of Russavia – that's why you get two very sweet Dutch cookies. One photo is left, because the article is protected. Do you know if I am allowed to ask an admin to insert it or not? I don't want to violate any policies here and after being blocked without any warning I am so confused. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two photos I didn't add were ones that didn't seem necessary to add, i.e. there were enough suitable images in the relevant articles already. None of the articles are full-protected, though, so you shouldn't have a problem adding the images to those articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on your opinion in this matter. Thank you for explanation. --Seleucidis (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up my mistake.[7] I tried used that new "Thank" link but I'm not sure if it worked. Did you get it? I'm using IE10 and I'm not sure if this feature is compatible with this browser. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't pop up in my notifications, but, obviously, your message is received. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just tried it in Google Chrome, and it appears to have worked this time.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. 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) 12:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Devil's Advocate! I've noticed you removing hoax credits in several articles (e.g. [8]) and it is most appreciated. But I don't know if you're aware that there is a very annoying IP-hopping vandal that I and others have been fighting over the years, and many of your reverts have been of "the Voice Cast Vandal". He is obsessed with Jim Varney and Alec Baldwin, and has recently become obsessed with the Ghostbusters franchise. I am the resident expert on this troll, and if you have any questions about an IP being rhis jerk, I can quickly determine whether it's him or not. Thanks for cleaning up his mess! Cheers :) Doc talk 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just wanted to encourage you to investigate the RS archives regarding RT, because from what I have seen, it is unquestionably, considered RS. I don't care about the ExxonMobile instance, but because you're such an active editor it's important you know. petrarchan47tc 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what appears to be the most recent discussion and it is pretty clear that, while certain partisans like RT for opposing the Western establishment view, most editors think it is at best a source to be used with caution for non-contentious details if at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think the most recent discussion would tell you the full picture? I meant to suggest you look at all of them, thats why i said 'investigate'. I hope you would stop removing RT as a source (unless the RS noticeboard doesn't say what I think it does in the matter). Thanks. petrarchan47tc 07:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, having studied the media, I seriously challenge the idea that there is any thing called a "Western establishment view", unless you are referring to the propaganda model of journalism which constructs single-narratives and limits the voice of investigative journalists. If that is what you are describing, than from an ideological perspective, there is no difference between the view put forth by RT and the "Western establishment", in that they are both different versions of single propaganda narratives. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit on the ExxonMobil Mayflower no fly zone! Thanks. I am a bit liberal, and I even know that HuffPo and Mother Jones are not valid new sources. Can we have some of the more conservative editors know that NewsMax and others are also not "real" sources? My best Greg

This is the removal we are discussing. I'm not sure where the Mother Jones comment is coming from, but you might want to investigate RS noticeboard archives regarding huffpost when you have time. (And welcome to Wikipedia!). petrarchan47tc 07:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, I indefinitely blocked a user who is topic-banned from Scientology for disruption. That user misused an appeal of their ban for repeatedly and unnecessarily posting claims about the real-life identity of another user who is apparently also heavily involved in editing Scientology-related topics. In response, I indefinitely blocked the appellant for WP:OUTING and requested that their edits at issue be oversighted, which they were.

For no apparent reason, you continue to insert yourself into this matter, most recently at [9] (now revdeleted) by advancing the argument that the posting of the alleged real-life name of the editor in question did not continue outing. That argument is spurious. It is evident from the circumstances that the user in question does not wish their identity to be made public (which is entirely understandable considering the topic area they edit in). Under these circumstances, continuing to post their alleged name on-wiki, especially for no useful purpose, constitutes severe harassment. As the closer of an archived noticeboard discussion you linked to noted: "Intentionally bringing up that old name doesn't benefit anyone or the encyclopedia, and so it should be avoided". Whether or not the username may be indirectly linkable to a real name by some complicated chain of logical connections between old Wikipedia pages is immaterial. Please review particularly the parts of the policy WP:OUTING that provide: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" and "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."

Your insistence on bringing this matter up, even though you noted that I removed a prior message by you with a remark that this matter is unfit for on-wiki discussion, potentially furthers the harassment I described above, or facilitates future similar harrassment by others by providing links to pages that may contain personally identifying material. It may also signal your intention to support or encourage such harassment of that editor or other editors involved in editing Scientology-related topics. For these reasons, I am warning you to desist from any further involvement in discussions related to the matter of the identity of the editor at issue here, or from any other misconduct related to Scientology. If you disregard this warning, you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions as indicated above.  Sandstein  19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite amazed that you would revdel links to a public arbitration page that was directly relevant to the subject under discussion and an archived AN case from just last year. You cherry-picked the AN close, neglecting the part where it was stated plainly that noting what the [redacted,  Sandstein  07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)] stands for is not outing. To cry about outing and rev-del links to on-wiki findings from the Arbitration Committee case on Scientology and an archive of a barely year-old widely-read community noticeboard discussion is a bit absurd even for you. In the case brought to AN last year, Prioryman's last name was noted by an editor in a rather irrelevant context, but that is not really the case here as we are talking about an AE discussion pertaining to Scientology. Prioryman is an anti-Scientology writer off-wiki who writes heavily on that subject on Wikipedia in a way that reflects his anti-Scientology bias and the blocked editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article is why said editor was subject to the topic ban he was appealing at AE.[reply]

ArbCom made Prioryman's identity a matter of public record long ago. To threaten me and delete my response for simply pointing to where it was made public record by the Arbitration Committee regarding that topic area and to where the community has rejected this claim of outing within the past year is ridiculous. My reasoning for getting involved is simple enough, you appear to be making a false claim of outing and blocked an editor under those false pretenses, while trying to conceal a matter of public record that illustrates another editor's agenda-driven editing. Please, reverse your warning, your rev-del, and your block of that other editor. All of those actions are without merit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Continuing to post the real identity of a user who clearly wishes to keep it private is harassment, irrespective of whether that name may previously have been published somewhere offwiki or perhaps even onwiki (which is not at all clear to me). This is particularly so because in the instant case, the now-blocked user had no need at all, for the purpose of appealing their Scientology topic ban, to publish that name, yet did so nonetheless repeatedly despite a warning by another administrator. That you continue to bring up this matter speaks not only to your misunderstanding of the outing policy, but also to an intention to create drama for its own sake, or for some other meritless purpose, or to enable and support such harassment. If you continue to do so, as you appear to be intent on despite my warning, this will very likely lead to more pointless and drama-filled discussion that contains personally identifying material or links to such material, which would perpetuate or facilitate the harassment my previous administrator actions were intended to prevent. For these reasons, you are sanctioned as follows:

Because any on-wiki discussion or appeal of this sanction would likely have exactly the effect the sanction is intended to prevent (namely, the publication of personally identifying material in violation of the prohibition against outing, or links to such material), you are particularly prohibited from appealing this sanction on-wiki. Please direct any appeal by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.  Sandstein  07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Prioryman's previous account isn't outing either. I didn't link to anything off-wiki either. Rather I linked to an Arbitration finding that plainly confirmed his identity to anyone who reads said findings and a community discussion from last year that decided Prioryman's identity being noted on-wiki was not outing. That the closer said it should be avoided is not the same as saying it is forbidden and, in the context of Scientology discussions, Prioryman's identity is quite pertinent. Adding bad action after bad action over this matter will not turn out well for you Sandy. I suggest your rescind this restriction immediately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Thank you. —Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[10]]--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee that may interest or involve you on the page linked to above.  Sandstein  22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 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) 01:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus said he's going to open ArbCom against me. Unbelievable. The editing atmosphere in that article have been extremely problematic for a long time which I'm sure you're well aware of. With constant focus by some editors to find and allow only one specific position into the article in what is actually a heavily disputed field. And the constant refusal by some editors to work with anyone that differs from their position. Even just mentioning any other possible positions that may exist in reliable sources and they'll threaten ArbCom against you. BlackHades (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator. 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) 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivil threats and bad-faith behavior have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard, vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.87.53 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Red wolf. 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) 03:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made two changes to the Operation Bluestar page. The first one was that I replaced "Khalsa" with "Sikh extremists" in the Belligerents infobox. The Khalsa is defined as "The Khalsa (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ; [xaːlsaː]) is the collective body of all initiated Sikhs represented by the five beloved-ones and can be called the Guru Panth" or " Sikhs which have undergone the sacred Amrit Ceremony initiated by the 10th Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh". It is strictly religious. Placing "Khalsa" in the belligerents section from Operation Bluestar is analogous to placing "Muslims" in the belligerents box for the war in afghanistan.

Secondly, I removed "high civilian casualties" and "Sikh fighters killed in military assault on temple complex" in the "results" section of the main infobox. Civilian casualties and the death of belligerents is ubiquitous in virtually every war/battle. It need not be included in the "results" "Indian tactical victory" should be added in that section, also.

I stand by my edits, and I'd rather not start an edit war. JDiala (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how replacing it with "Sikh extremists" is more neutral, nor do I see removal of infobox material about there being high civilian casualties as appropriate. That seems to be intended to create a very negative impression of the Sikhs involved and mitigate the actions of the Indian government. My suggestion if you want to change the belligerent section from what it is currently that you try to come up with a more neutral description.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Sikh militants be better?JDiala (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it would be better to be clear in defining the Sikh side and avoiding any vague generalizations that would potentially create a negative impression of the Sikhs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to them as the "Khalsa" or just "Sikhs" is much more of a vague generalization than what I am proposing . The Taliban, for example, are referred to as Muslim extremists or Muslim militants. There's no controversy on Wikipedia about this. "Sikh militant" is a completely accurate term to refer to them; that's what they are, and if you have any objection to this besides the feelings of some group of people hypothetically being hurt, please care to tell me. JDiala (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, having read your submission on RFArb, I'm quite surprised that you continue to misrepresent why I was upset with the unblocking admin. In all discussions surrounding that, I was VERY clear that I never advocated a "blue wall" as you state, and <insert deity> knows I never will. I'm pretty sure you understood that - I'm surprised to find you now reiterating that now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You objected to Tariq saying that you and another admin showed inexplicably poor judgment regarding Pudeo's block and claimed that he was "trashing admins" with such a remark. The response you gave certainly conjured the image of someone who wants a fellow admin to cover for other admins, even when disagreeing with an administrative action. In other words, your suggestion was that Tariq should feel free to disagree with an action, but should keep quiet on the conduct of the admin who took action previously.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as we already discussed, that was not at all the case, and that was not the suggestion whatsoever - I was pretty sure we'd already clarified this together EatsShootsAndLeaves 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). 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) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Devile's Advocate,

I thought I would let you know that the reason the article is semi protected is that IPs constantly (for their amusement) change the table from wikiable to sortable and back and forth. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding Texas Senate Bill 5, another source calls the bill House Bill 2,[11] why the ambiguity? Is there a mistake in how I understand the terms? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that it was earlier called Senate Bill 5 and later called House Bill 2? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, it was probably that they had to re-introduce the bill because it was a new session (Davis used the filibuster to help run out the clock on the previous special session) and so it went by a different designation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the statement "Texas Senate Bill 5 (or Texas SB 5) is a bill that was created on June 11, 2013, and was discussed by the Eighty-third Texas Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on July 18, 2013." isn't accurate and a rename needed too? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the same bill. It was just passed under a different designation. The article's name is dependent on whether it is the common name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at AN/I, I think you hit the bullseye right there. I just can't be arsed to post further on that [superbly titled, thanks Andy] thread. Peace. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. 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) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted some of Wadood Jahan (talk · contribs) edits. I thought you might want to know that it appears he is a part of a large, ongoing meatpuppet effort. A few details are here: Talk:Humaima_Malick#Note_on_the_edit-warring_by_the_ip.27s_and_new_accounts. If you are aware of this and have seen discussions elsewhere, please let me know. More editors need to be aware of the problem. I'm also hoping that we might actually get some response from this latest meatpuppet. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On SA unblock and topic ban discussion....priceless. Made me smile and I needed that today. Like--Mark 18:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nuclear weapons and Israel. 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) 16:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an attack to a user, but to the project. The responses on this thread are a total disgrace (except for Alanscottwalker). To see that a user can insult another contributor on a page as followed as Jimbo's TP, without any problem puzzles me. I see that a lot of people around here think that Commons is broken and unsalvageable, but I think that this event is the proof that one should sweep before its door before looking the neighbor's one. Pleclown (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were presenting a link to a case against another editor as an example of what is wrong with the site. That is an implied attack and having it affixed to your page was inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you restored a personal attack that I had removed. Removing the personal attack and warning the user about it was the most lenient response I felt I could make. Tarc is not blocked or topic banned from this page. They are free to make whatever point they wanted to make in a civil way. In restoring the personal attack, you have implicitly condoned it and indicated that you find this behaviour to be acceptable. This encourages more of the same and is specifically against our policy. I has hoped that Tarc would learn from this incident and do better in future, but you have denied them that opportunity. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, and I certainly don't want to start handing out blocks, but I do want to be clear that I find your action to be disruptive. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the entire comment and most of it was not an attack. Someone being uncivil does not mean you can use that as an excuse to remove any relevant points they raise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective. I suspect that we're going to differ on this point, but my feeling is that to rewrite a comment to remove the objectionable parts would be far more presumptuous than simply deleting an entire comment and asking the user to rephrase. As I said, Tarc is free to make their points without insulting other users and I encouraged them to do so. The inclusion of relevant points does not give a free pass on incivility. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you do photo requests in Oakland County, Michigan?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be able to do that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for clarifying :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo: OPR 004477 Something to Consider 1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit. 2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting. 3. Vicki has no charges against her. 4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position."[10][55]

Apologies, I didn't realize it was backed by citations or that it was a quote from a prominent FBI official. I mistook it for personal commentary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood accounting aside (and ignoring outright lies) it is best not to ever claim a film is a "box office success" unless it more than doubles the production budget. The Economist: "cost $200m to make and another $50m-100m to market" [12] Forbes: "a film generally has to make twice its budget back to break even" [13] WP:MOSFILM should probably give more advice, or at least make this clearer but in simpler terms unless you have a source directly calling a film a "box office success" it probably is not and any suggestion otherwise in Wikipedia is pure original research even though it might seem at first like a reasonable claim. -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban. 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) 05:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Manning's announcement was going to cause a significant amount of conflict on Wikipedia was plainly obvious. We have a lot of varying views here and in situations like these, the differences in opinion are going to come to the forefront strongly.

What I did not expect was to see such a violent division on Wikipediocracy. This is one of the more stark divisions i've ever seen happen. I'm saving the whole conversation, obviously, since it's prime fodder to show the issues of WO to others (maybe this can lead to a news article on the site and we can go and put it into the WO article on how WO has several clear transphobics in its midst). I mean, Tarc and I have never really liked each other, but I certainly wouldn't have ever viewed him as being the type of person as he exposed himself to be in that discussion. Nor Carrite, for that matter, that was especially surprising.

And I certainly didn't expect you to take the stance of "mental illness". If you had meant that in the sense of something where the cure is sex reassignment surgery, as supported by the medical and psychological community, then that would make sense and follow. However, it is quite clear from your comment that you don't think that. In fact, it is quite clear that you think much more negative things. Silverseren^C 10:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and empathize with people not conforming to a certain gendered image and feeling a deep urge to change to the gender more suitable to their feelings and attitudes, but my view is people should accept themselves and each other body and mind. Refusing to accept one's body as one's body does indicate poor mental health. That is as much a negative thing for me as any form of mental health issue. SRS is not really a "cure" for it since the biological reality remains. It is just indulging the delusion, which admittedly can be soothing. With regards to your claims of transphobia, my view is that it is not transphobic to stick with the biological reality as it is the biological reality. This isn't some point of contention as Bradley/Chelsea Manning is biologically male. Using the term "transphobic" under such circumstances implies there is some form of hatred, bigotry, or ignorance, involved in simply stating a biological reality.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring more to Tarc and Carrite with that, but your claims of "biological reality" seem to be ignoring the mental and psychological reality. The reality that we are just beginning to understand that biology often messes up. And in the case of the transgendered community, it messes up in the simple method of having someone with a gender of one type in their brain being born into a body of the opposite sex.

Sociologists have long since admitted that there are several facts that make men and women different from each other in basic ways. Yes, there is no direct claim to certain toys or colors, those are also placed by society and don't mean anything. But things like play styles and eventual interests do trend in certain directions for most men and women based on their gender, separate from the expectations that society places on the genders.

And in the case of biology, we are discovering that our brains are deeply involved into what our physical sex is (just like they play into our sexuality) and when you have a brain that is fit for one gender, but placed in the wrong body, there is a clash. And no amount of "brain adaptability" can change that. It is a fundamental mis-match that causes serious mental harm to the individual and which can only be rectified by having the body be changed in a manner that can let the brain better interact with it. That is what sex reassignment surgery does.

There are many strong reasons on why the medical and psychological communities have decided that such surgery is the best method we have to rectify the issues. Much like how sexuality cannot be changed (no matter what the ex-gay therapy people claim), mental gender cannot be swapped to fit the body. We have to swap the body to fit the mind. At least with the scientific technology we have now. We may become proficient enough in the sciences in the future so that we fully understand the human brain and can change it and mentally change any mis-matches of this sort, but I don't believe that is something society will support, because of the whole "Genetics Wars" that sci-fi has so long warned about, among other issues. Silverseren^C 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except right there you start with "separate from the expectations that society places on the genders" as though you can somehow magically separate them from a person's development in any reliable fashion. It is one of the biggest flaws with these biological determinist arguments. Many advocates are so obsessed with the physical aspects of humanity, that they do not sufficiently account for the pervasiveness of social pressures. Our social conception of gendered behavior has been millions of years in the making and permeates the entirety of the human experience. You can't just squirrel that away. Even in utero we are having experiences that impact our psychological development.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wouldn't that just mean that while society tries to box up the genders into two compact compartments, the reality of gender is that it is much more complicated and cannot be restricted in such a fashion? Because, if society was such a pervasive factor, then transgendered individuals wouldn't exist. The pervasiveness of social pressures should be lessening the amount of variation, not expanding it. So, if anything, social pressure hides the larger number of transgendered individuals that exist and would be known to exist if not forced to try and fit into their assigned box. The same thing holds true for sexuality. Silverseren^C 05:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is oversimplifying things. You have many different kinds of social pressure and different individual responses. All of these can conflict with each other and produce a variety of outcomes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]