This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Also, I don't know if I ever mentioned it explicitly, but thank you for trying on the SI mediation; that was an enormously difficult crowd to work with, and they sure didn't treat you very well; you showed great poise and did the best you could. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo. We unfairly expect new mediators to learn the administration side of formal mediation without assistance, so you probably weren't aware of this, but when closing a case, don't forget about this step. Hope everything is well at your end. Regards, AGK [•] 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It does serve a purpose; namely, categorization is not just about having categories on articles for the sake of having categories on articles, but about grouping together all the relevant articles about a particular class of topic in one place. Stub templates aren't sufficient as categorization by themselves, because they only group some articles, and they do so by a characteristic of the article (i.e. it's short and needs to be expanded), not by characteristics of the topic. As well, they're temporary categories for Wikipedia maintenance purposes, they're not meant for the end user (and should really be hidden categories for that reason), and they're meant to be removed from the article once it's been expanded beyond stub length, at a time when the article still has no permanent categories on it at all.

A river in England, for example, is only properly categorized if it's in a category that groups it with other rivers in England — but if its only "category" is "England geography stubs", which jumbles rivers and lakes and forests and mountains and ponds and cities and all manner of other geographic topics, and isn't river-specific, then we simply haven't put it in its proper encyclopedic context by filing it in a category that's actually meant for the user who might be looking for rivers in England.

And more importantly, the untagged uncategorized articles list has to be cleared to zero on a regular basis — it cannot have fifteen or twenty or fifty articles per day left on it just because they're "categorized" as stubs. If it's on that list, it has to get cleared off, period. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What will happen if it doesn't? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When I started working with the uncats list about a year and a half ago, the backlog was well over 40,000 articles. Yes, really, forty thousand. That's why it has to get cleared on a regular basis: because it can never get that large again if we take our role as an encyclopedia seriously. Just because it's not important to you personally doesn't mean it's not important to the project as a whole.

And believe me, I'd be quite happy if someone could program a bot that could look after it — because frankly, I don't actually enjoy it. I do it because it has to get done, not because it's what I really want to be doing. But the problem at this point is that some pages which do have proper categories on them can become uncats through user error (closing HTML tags incorrectly, inappropriate page blanking, etc.) or a system bug (for reasons which still aren't entirely clear, pages which merely get moved to a new title sometimes show up on that list too) — and a bot can't really distinguish or sort out those issues properly. So unfortunately the task still needs human eyes — and at any rate, any page that shows up on your watchlist because I've tagged it as an uncat would show up on your watchlist if a bot did it, too. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain that last bit? Bot edits can be hidden from watchlists (hideBots=1). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Qwyrxian has used your support vote on his RfA to boost his standing in the arbitration.[1] May I ask you whether this was done with your approval? Would his action compromise your position as a mediator? STSC (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is free to use any material not protected by mediation privilege, as you are. He knows this, and in fact I encouraged him to use that material. Qwyrxian is a diplomat par excellence, and continues to exemplify the qualities for which I recommended him for adminship. If you have any concerns relating to formal mediation, you are urged to contact the Mediation Committee. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Itō calculus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

hi Feezo! You have previously edited the article Azerbaijani American, that's why I decided to ask you to look at this version of the page [3] I have done many edits to it, expanded it tremendously, added many fresh, new sources, including unique statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, and in general made this article more consistent with other similar articles about "hyphenated Americans", such as Russian American, Turkish American, Iranian American, Armenian American, etc. This version of the article, however, keeps being reverted by some users, including IP anons[4], who are otherwise never improving the article in any way, content with keeping it in a sorry state and just revert. The article as well as its talk page could benefit from your insight and knowledge. I have left extensive comments myself, and each time I edited, I left an overwhelming number of sources, going above and beyond of what's necessary. I don't want this simple article to become artificially polarized, and thus think your "two cents" would help improve it. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to bring this "exception" up on the guideline talk page. It isn't conventional that a WikiProject can create a consensus that supercedes a guideline without discussion on the guideline's page. Otherwise, these same WikiProjects could create a "consensus" that says plots should be detail for detail, should be the primary focus of the article (i.e. little real world content), or that fictional characters should be written as if they are real. Then we have no point to a guideline because people are creating their own rules as they go. So, I would suggest bringing this "exception" to the talk page to be discussed as I can understand the idea behind this exception within that universe but even when I read that description on the WikiProject page I found some issues with how it was worded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've never notice that the consensus was so small. I will contact some more experienced project editors as I am sure there must have been more discussion that 4 people. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you had anything to do with the consensus, or are even part of that project. It's more about the fact that should there exist an exception to a rule from a guideline or a policy, that exception needs to be identified by that guideline through a discussion on that page. Otherwise, as I stated above, anyone can get a consensus to for any exception. An RfC for that WikiProject isn't necessary because that project doesn't supercede any guideline or policy. No WikiProject does. The reality is, if they want that to be an exception to the rule, then they need to propose such a thing at WP:WAF so that more people can voice on it and a proper wording can be established for all fiction that might fall under that criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the exception be undone in the meantime, e.g., remove the notice at ((WikiProject Middle-earth)) and fix articles that currently contradict the manual of style? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a start, I have 6000 pages on my watchlist, and maybe 100 of them are not middle-earth related :D Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to change articles right now, because if a consensus exists on the guideline page to make such an exception then changing the pages now would merely be unnecessary work. As for the noticed at the WikiProject Banner....the same applies. If a discussion ensues at the guideline and the result is that no such exception should be made, then the notice should be removed and pages should be changed. Until then, just allow the discussion to take place and see what happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As a regular editor of Tolkien articles and a project member I'd like to have seen a notifier about such an important change at the main project talk page, not only on the guideline talk where nobody ever takes a look. For the time being I have removed your changes because I do object to them. Please let's discuss this at the main project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth which gets more attention than the guidelines subpage. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since that seems to be the main forum I have also commented on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. And as I wrote there I am quite disappointed that you didn't care to inform the project more obviously about that formal discussion. It would have been a matter of courtesy to let us know about the WAF discussion instead of throwing the consensus argument at us after having had this discussion on a higher level. De728631 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello De728631, thanks for your message — I wonder if maybe you could scale back the combative tone a bit? Expressions like "didn't care to inform the project" and "throwing the consensus argument" to me seem to be a product of the kind of "us vs. them" mentality associated with the all-too-frequent perception that wikiprojects invariably struggle against the will of the "wider Wikipedia" outsiders. Of course, this is not your fault, nor the fault of this wikiproject. It's inevitable that a gathering place of like-minded people will establish its own internal community and ways of doing things — that's why it's so important that these not conflict with the global community and ways of doing things. The more investment a project has in its own processes, the more likely it is to encourage partisan defense — on both sides. This isn't to say that there can never be exceptions to the rules when applied to a wikiproject: but these need to flow from a general consensus in the first place, or the project will likely be seen as exercising undue authority over its sphere of interest, which again is likely to result in partisanship and hurt feelings.

Again, if I haven't made this clear, I deliberately express no opinion on whether the wikiproject (or Wikipedia) should use past or present tense in any particular set of articles. My interest is only that of a facilitator, and I hope that we, both as Wikipedians and Tolkien enthusiasts, can reach an agreement that is acceptable to all.

With best wishes,

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I might have been a bit too colloquial but your way of dealing with the matter made me think of this rivalry you just mentioned, it looked much like the project had totally been ignored. Because there are valid reasons why WP Middle-earth chose these specific guidelines as I have now explained at the WP:WAF talk page. Actually the Wikipedia manual of style explicitely permits using past tense for dealing with fictional history (Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well) — and that's what we do in the Tolkien articles. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the above discussion, Carl Sixsmith said he would contact other "project editors", by which I assume he meant wikiproject members — so the project was apparently involved since before the WAF discussion (unless he didn't follow up on this; you can ask him if you want). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You locked Kevin Garnett. Please make this edit for me. Thanks. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.72.180 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping to update all of those pages yesterday. As you will see, there are more updates to be had, and also some pages to be recreated. I have done the research pertaining to a specific Senate Journal, and you will see that the Ohio Senate sections of many pages will need to be updated. Also, would you please consider creating these pages? They were deleted due to vandalism, but should be represented here.

They are:

• Nan Baker http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=16
• Louis Terhar (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=30
• Sean O'Brien (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=65
• Bob Peterson (Ohio) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=85
• Andy Thompson (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=93
• Brian Hill (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=94
• Casey Kozlowski http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=99

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.17.37.187 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks those pages were created by a user who was banned for persistent copyright infringement, so the deleted versions are likely to have copyright problems. Even if they don't, they were deleted under a valid criteria (WP:G5; some multiple times), so I can't just restore them indiscriminately. There's no reason they can't be recreated, but it would be better to start from scratch. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind starting them from scratch and having them moved by an admin?

There's no need to create empty pages — you can use articles for creation to request them. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Marcus Qwertus is out on a mission to revert any edits done to Ohio politicians regardless of their legitimacy, and has reverted numerous articles and talk pages for no good reason except for "denying" the accused individual. Obviously, he has harmed numerous articles. I have put out edit requests on many protected pages which I hope you can get to ASAP. He also has reverted Joe Schiavoni, which previously checked out 100% as a legitimate article. You will see a edit request to revert that page back to what it was yesterday. The same goes for Tom Niehaus and William G. Batchelder. Regardless who is doing this or making the requests, if they are legitimate, then they should be accounted for.

Is there anything we can do to ensure that important updates do not constantly get reverted? 76.250.190.255 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the arbitration case is now over, may the Senkaku Islands mediation pages now be undeleted? If not, can I as an admin go back through and copy out only the data gathered? We're trying to figure out how to proceed with getting a consensus on the name, and at least part of the mediation produced some useful data that myself and others want to refer to. If you want to use the latter approach, I would be happy to first email you the specific info I would like to remove so that I don't mistakenly copy out something you think needs to remain hidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Feezo/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi, Feezo. I have a quick question. Can an uninvolved user in a Request for Mediation case leave a vote when it has started? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the discussion on the case talk page, it's not an official part of the case, which is on hold while we prepare our response to the statements we've received. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Best wishes, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Mediation Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Mediation Committee as well as the Arbitration Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Mediation or Arbitration Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Mediation Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you have the ability and the interest to effect a limited page edit lock to prevent vandalism as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kapil_Sibal#Another_vandalism

I am unfamiliar with process in this matter, so if I've gotten it wrong, please advise.

Fydfyd (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please consider unprotecting Template:Useronline, as it has only 9 transclusions, and thus doesn't qualify as highly visible template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Changed to semi-protection. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Feezo,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wishing Feezo/Archive 6 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Feezo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, of possible interest: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_39_.28School_libel_and_vandalism.29. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, user. MemoRamso (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there: One thing you might add to the Infinite Monkey Theorem is Dr. AE Wilder-Smith's contention that in fact the mechanics of the Origin of Life are such that chemically what would happen is that the keys would hit the page creating a letter but then as they lifted off the page would remove it. His position based on actual bio-chemical reality shows the total absurdity of randomness creating something like DNA or life from matter by chance. He debated Dawkins in '86 at the Huxley Centennial Debate on the Theory of Evolution vs The Doctrine of Creation. He was a dear friend of mine & a very brilliant scientist. Chip Rohlke Christ is Creator.com Ministries 24.170.168.28 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DUKLJA Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail.It always does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.27.190 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you are one of the Admins on Wikipedia and since I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how things work around here I would much appreciate a little help.The problem I have is with Serbian editors who are editing almost every article concerning Montenegro according to their version of history thus using Wikipedia as a tool for spreading their nationalistic propaganda.Montenegro is very small country and there are not many Montenegrins around here and when ocasionally some Montenegrin editor writes something here they drive him away by sheer numbers and by proclaiming his sources "nationalistic" and "POV" while they are in fact those who are using such sources that totally contradict and oppose official Montenegrin history(or to put it simple-they are using their superior numbers to steal our History and present it as if its theirs-Serbian history).Antidiscriminator,Panonian,White Walker,Pax Equilibrium are some of the most notable Serbian editors who do these things,but they are not alone.I would be very thankful if you would be so kind and explain me if Wikipedia supports this kind of behavior(using it as tool of nationalistic propaganda)and if not,where is the appropriate place for me to put in a complaint,because every sane discussion with them on this subject is fruitless(as we can see from their previous quarrels with Montenegrin editors)and as I already said they will just overpower me with their sheer numbers. Best Regards

p.s. For example,in article about Duklja it says that Duklja was part of Serbian realm and that Serbs lived,but the reliable sources does not suggest that.DAI(De Administrando Imperio) only says that in Duklja live Slavs,while surrounding countries are inhabited by Serbs and Croats.In a letter from 1077, the Pope refers to ruler of Duklja Mihailo as "Michaeli Sclavorum Regi" or Mihailo,King of Slavs.In the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja,from which most data of the early history of Duklja is collected inhabitants of Duklja are called Slaves or Croats,depending on version,but never Serbs.So how can one conclude that Duklja was part of Serbian realm?!I am really trying to be neutral on this one and I think that only solution is to erase any nationalistic conotation from this article. Montenegro in my heart (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, Wikipedia does not condone any kind of propaganda, nationalistic or otherwise. Our content policies are based on the principles of neutral point of view and reliable sourcing. The dispute resolution page details the procedures for resolving content disputes. For help dealing with an uncivil editor, see the wikiquette assistance page. Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello; a few years ago you participated in a brief discussion on the Lamia (mythology) talk page about a potential move of the article. An identical move request has been officially posted, and your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. For more information see the Talk page. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As an IP I cannot voice my input regarding this matter via email, as the links are hidden to IPs. I will be going on vacation later today and as this input window is closing I can only blurt out arguments here, for which I apologize. After some historical observations of negative editor disciplinary behaviour I will not be obtaining a user name. I have never had one. Sorry. Please do not let sock or other sidetrack issues cloud any judgements. This has been one of the rants, used exhaustively, in the past, as a distraction from the resolution of issues.

• WP articles should be consistent style and MoS articles trying to guide these endeavours should be observed or changed to suit.
• "the Beatles" refers to four individual Beatles persons.

"The Beatles" refers the the rock band as a singular unit.

This style has been observed in hundred of Beatles article consistently and to change this de facto standard setting for one article could open up a huge rip in the consistency fabric as all articles will be subject to the same arguments based on this one example's outcome. This will continue disputes here ad nauseum and not be productive for the WP concept as these hundreds of articles become hotbeds of distractions base on this outcome.

• Since The Beatles trademark and/or copyrighted name seems to have varied throughout history on album covers and in media usage it cannot have any bearing on the decision of style in WP. Mostly all capitals was used on album covers but exceptions are noted and WP tries to avoid this style in prose. I have to discount any of this in the weight of my vote.

In Conclusion: my vote is to use both spellings in a style that adheres to content usage in the sentence, whether referring to the individual band members, or the collective singular band/group. This style appears to maintain the current de facto standard observed in hundreds of other Beatles articles and adheres to the WP:MOSTM to capitalize trademarks.

Thank you. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still involved in this. --andreasegde (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - did my email about the/The get to you? I didn't get the copy that I was suppposed to, so wondwer if there's an email problem. Please let me know. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I got it :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Twice I bet! Tvoz/talk 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.