((subst:adminreview1))

I am requesting administrative review over my link to the Rational Wiki webpage about William Lane Craig:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

I am trying to include a link to the RationalWiki article on Dr. Craig:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

My edit, I believe, is perfectly legitimate. Wikipedia is not a "Reasonable Faith" website nor a Dr. Craig fan club. Readers can decide and judge for themselves.

User Page	Talk Page	Userboxes	Sources	Research	Articles	Site Map	Common.js	Contributions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

• When I copy/pasted from my userspace (after 1 year of work), I put it immediately in MILHIST A-Review hoping that would get eyes on it, but I was mistaken in my perception of its level of activity. There really isn't anyone to get outside input from  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lingzhi, understood. I'd put in a request for a temporary lock of the article (auto-confirmed) on WP:RfPP if it continues. That'll force the IP to the talk page. I'll reply with more in a short while just trying to think. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Lingzhi, nothing else comes to mind except posting a message on the various Wikiprojects for comment. That solution, however, would only be useful if the IP will accept the outcome of the discussion. The British Empire and India Wikiprojects appear semi-active, the Bangladeshi one doesn't appear nearly active enough to be relied upon for quick response. The problem with this is that the IP has taken great issue with the entire update - not just the removal of the quote. They obviously have a partisan wish for the article to be biased against Britain. Their attitude does not suggest to me that they will be willing to collaborate or accept the outcome of a discussion. Inevitably I see this escalating into a game of whack-a-mole. *Sigh* Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll see what I can scare up, maybe next week (busy this week for sure and maybe next week too). Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lingzhi; No problem. I'll add the article to my watchlist and keep an eye out for the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting dragged back into it either, but obligatory wikilink. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood - Ahhhh.... I only just got it. Clayton Bigsby. Goddamn it. Didn't even cross my mind. Touche. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine what it would be like to edit Wikipedia in a day and age when the Chappelle's Show has fallen into the public domain. It's gonna be glorious. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you've been here 12 years, do you really need a link to WP:ASPERSIONS to be told why that was inappropriate. I recommend you leave him alone.

And you've been here less than a year-and-a-half. I recommend you leave the advice-giving to people with some experience. --Calton | Talk 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton; Besides my Wiki-age do you have another complaint? That said, I freely acknowledge that I came across as condescending in the first sentence of the quoted comment. That is in part why I removed it. My apologies. I will not be retracting the recommendation though. I firmly think that this is slowly creeping towards harrassment. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides my Wiki-age do you have another complaint? Well, there's your selective reading comprehension, here and at ANI. Hint: drawing attention to your "Wiki-age" was not the actual point of my comment.

I freely acknowledge that I came across as condescending... NO, you actually WERE condescending; a true apology -- not an "I'm-sorry-if-you-were-offended" dismissal -- would recognize that.

I firmly think that this is slowly creeping towards harrassment [sic] And you would be wrong, positing a ridiculously sensitive standard of slippery road of harassment -- two queries for second opinions, one already upheld. --Calton | Talk 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton ... on your first point, well no duh. Why do you think I went on after that comment and addressed the rest of it? That was an intentionally terse/curt response aimed specifically and solely at your contentless wiki-age comment. Was that not obvious?
On your second point of "came across" vs "were", fair enough though that wasn't my intent. I was apologizing for being condescending not for you thinking I was condescending. Again, I saw it was condescending, that is in part why I removed it. I removed a lot more than the one sentence too if I recall. There was no intention to deceive with that comment.
On your third point, I'll take the L.
That something came of it, does not mean your complaint itself had merit. Your OP was (signficantly reduced); The name and contribs, makes me suspicious. The main problem I have with that is that the contribs part of it was about where they were contributing not what. Had you cited disruptive editing, vandalism, edit-warring, anything at all then it would have been meaningful. As you self-evidently show on your second AN/I post where you cite mediocre content creation on White nationalism as your NOTHERE rationale. I'll give you an example of what I mean by saying your first AN/I post was not merited; It's exactly like Richard Spencer's getting punched in the face spawning the discussion over whether it's ever "okay to punch Nazi's". Your punch may have started the discussion, that doesn't mean it was a meaningful contribution to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't really understand what's going on on the Panthéon-Assas University.

On the 10th of May, you wrote : "Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) for about a week or until all three of us are completely satisfied that they are no longer necessary.". Today, "Following Mr rnddude remarks ", Launebee removed the ((Advert)) [1]. Do you back this change, and did you express an other opinion since the 10th of May ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, XIIIfromTOKYO, my opinion hasn't changed since the 10th of May. I did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues. As far as I am aware, we're yet to (properly) resolve any one of the issues. I said by this point that I would put it up at DRN. I may still do that once the AN/I thread has been resolved. I haven't left a comment at AN/I yet. I will do so at some point. It is approaching 11pm at my home. Now is about the time for me to go to sleep so I wouldn't expect any further commentary from me at PA or AN/I. I back part of Launebee's edit - removing the LLM paragraph which is not relevant to PA comes to mind. The whole edit, however, includes things I expressly opposed. Indeed, if we could edit piece by piece we might have resolved at least one or two things by this point. The issue is the wholesale addition and then removal. This doesn't do anything. It moves the article in no direction; a zero sum game. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to give your opinion here. --Launebee (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t hesitate to put the article in B standard, and remove the templates when you want. I guess the only issue you have is the ranking in the lead: you can see in Sciences Po page that people (and I) agreed to put the best ranking in the lead, it seems fair to put in PA article the most significant one (the only one not ranking on English-based publications). --Launebee (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Launebee, I am on holidays for the next five weeks. I wont be back to editing until July. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It comes to no surprise that again Launebee removed the template. I am kind of tired of this contributor insults and beheaviour.

This contributor says that I'm harrassing him/her. In France, harrassement is a crime. Therefore, that contributor says that I'm a criminal. I'm kind of tired to be insulted that way, with the tacit agreement of some admins. With your tactit agreement.

You clearly said that you ""did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues"".So far, nothing as been discussed on the talkpage. Worst of all, everything has been put back on the article[2]

So :

• did you change your mind ; or
• is this contributor lying when stating that s/he[3] had your tacit approuval to remove the template.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wrote you tacitely approved the removal, I said each one of your advice on content have been followed. There is no consensus on advertisement in the article at all so the POV banner is by far sufficient, don’t you think? --Launebee (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XIIIfromTOKYO, I haven't edited Pantheon-Assas or its talk page in the past two weeks. I've rendered no new opinions in that time with the exception of a single comment at AN/I. I am not aware of any admins tacitly or otherwise approving any of what is happening at Pantheon-Assas or Sciences Po. Indeed, the last admin interaction with those pages was to hand out EW blocks to both you and Launebee and to put admin protection on the PA article. The last AN/I thread wasn't visited by a single admin. I suggest that you or Launebee consider contacting WP:WikiProject Universities and/or WP:DRN for assistance. I am on holiday and besides very rare comments am unable to be involved in this until early July. I will render an extremely limited opinion on the advert banner here. I am not entirely sure specifically what you want rectified in terms of advert XIII, but, I had personally thought of the rankings in the lede as an advert-y inclusion. I have found at AN/I and Sciences Po that university rankings being placed in the lede is apparently perfectly normal. While I'd go into an argument over NPOV and DUE, it's not my decision to make the community standards. The other section that I note is written advert-y is Reputation though this section is almost entirely quotes and is not written in Wikipedia's voice. There cannot be any kind of resolution to this dispute until each issue is solidly identified. I recommend you start a section on the PA talk page. Quote every advert issue and every neutrality issue you think needs to be rectified and lastly specify which references need to be improved and if possible why. If by the time I am back from my holiday we're still at a standstill then I'll file a case at DRN. Robert McClenon, you're the main contributor at WP:DRN. Would you mind taking a brief look at Pantheon-Assas University and it's talk page and make any comment or advice in terms of what action would be appropriate. The dispute at that page and at Sciences Po has been litigated at AN/I four times with no resolution and no admin action beyond a short 24hr block and a 0 minute? admin protection applied by Ymblanter. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question? If there is a content dispute, I suggest that you ask for a Third Opinion, or that you actually file a request for moderated dispute resolution at WP:DRN. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude About the lead, I now agree to remove the ranking from it. I just wanted the same community standards to be applied to all universities. --Launebee (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what the question is, but maybe there isn't a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question Robert McClenon is what's the next step? Like I said, the content dispute has been taken to ANI four separate times. I rendered a 3O in the form of a B-class review and a few comments trying to handle one issue at a time. I was just wondering if you had any ideas or solutions in the mean time as I am on holiday, editing sporadically, and havent dealt with a dispute like this before. It started in May or June last year and hasnt gone anywhere in the mean time. XIII and Launebee havent been able to solve the issue themselves and my involvement hasnt resolved it either. As you can see by this thread and the article history for the past couple weeks. Ill file a formal DRN as soon as I get back from Europe if you think that is the appropriate next move. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Something is not being stated correctly about the history. You say that a content dispute has been taken to WP:ANI four times, but ANI is not a content forum, and if something has been taken to ANI four times, there clearly is a conduct issue, even if only the fact that it is being persistently taken to WP:ANI. What happened at ANI the four times? Often a dispute that is taken to ANI that is really a content dispute is closed with a statement that it is a content dispute, but what happened the second, third, and fourth times? If someone keeps taking the dispute to ANI, there is a conduct problem, even if only that it is being made into a content problem. It certainly is beyond the capability of the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is for lightweight voluntary resolution of content disputes. If the content dispute has been dragging on this persistently, then either formal mediation may be in order, or it may be time to ask for arbitration of a dispute that is beyond community resolution. What has happened on the previous trips to ANI? Either this dispute needs formal mediation, or it needs arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Sorry. The ANI weren’t about the content, but about, according to me, the aggressive attitude of XIII toward me. I agreed with Mr rnddude opinions (except this reputation section, which was not discussed before). XIII is doing disruptive editing without saying precisely what he thinks is not neutral. If it continues, I will move it to the next step. But I think the discussion with Mr rnddude is constructive and we finish each time to agree on things. --Launebee (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I've taken a look through AN/I to refresh my memory. The first filing isn't particularly relevant here because it was between Launebee and SalimJah over conduct at Sciences Po (SP). There was no resolution and no admin action taken. This was in September of 2016 and can be found in Archive 934. It was also my first interaction with Launebee. There is a duplicate of the filing in Archive 935 for some reason as well. The second AN/I filing is the first time that XIII was brought to the noticeboard along with SalimJah. This one is more relevant because it involves Pantheon-Assas (PA) as well as SP. It received zero admin attention and was archived around mid-December into Archive 941 without a resolution. The third AN/I filing is the only filing where an admin intervened, the result of this discussion was two 24hr blocks for edit warring and can be found in Archive 952. The very last AN/I filing can be found in Archive 954. It too was archived with no resolution and no admin attention. You'll, I am sure, notice that the threads are not about the content dispute themselves but about conduct issues; harrassment, NLT, personal attacks and edit-warring. That said, all of these are directly tied to the content disputes at the two articles. I am only familiar with the PA dispute because that's the only article talk that I have posted to and also the only article that I've edited. I do not believe that these AN/I filings would have ever been made if the content dispute had been settled. Principally because the interactions themselves would not have taken place. On top of that, no admin has thought the conduct questions to be meritorious enough to even leave a comment, let alone take action. All of the issues at PA center around, in a somewhat broad generalization, the three maintenance templates at the top of the article page. None of these have been resolved since May/June 2016. XIIIfromTOKYO puts the templates back every time Launebee takes them down, and Launebee takes them down everytime that they make a rectifying edit for some of the content. E.g. I suggested that we remove LLM guide and the material used from LLM guide as an unsuitable source. Launebee removed the LLM citation and material, made a few other changes that we'd discussed as well, and took down one of the templates too. XIIIfromTOKYO reverted the edit, reinstating the template, removing the new material and reinstated the LLM material. So you think it's time for RFM or RFAR? I wouldn't have thought ARBCOM would give this a second glance. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that I rarely removed all the banners. I just disagree on putting the advert banner without consensus on that, I think that the neutrality dispute banner is sufficient. Robert McClenon, since there is a dispute and not a consensus at all on advertisement, since Mr rnddude rather agree with me (we can continue the discussion on some points of course), don’t you think the POV banner is sufficient? If yes, could you erase the other bannner yourself? --Launebee (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Paris Issues

I have taken an initial look at the history of these ANI filings. I see that all of the filings have to do with the University of Paris and its schools. I also see that they seem to have to do with warring over NPOV tagging, and, in my opinion, quarrels over tagging are not constructive, and are a distraction from whatever the real issues are. The purpose of tags is to call attention to the fact that an article needs to be improved. The issue should always only be how to improve the article, not whether to tag the article. The fact that there have been multiple filings that seem to have been about tagging implies that editors are not trying to work together. As you say, none of the issues have been resolved since May/June 2016, a year; that in itself is problematic. I agree that the ANI filings would not have happened if there weren't content issues compounded by conduct issues. What I don't know, not having been involved, is whether the parties are sufficiently willing to try to resolve the content issues that formal mediation is worth trying, or whether the stubbornness and incivility are such that the conduct issues must be addressed first. If the editors are willing to work with a mediator on the content issues, then it always better to address the content issues in the hope that they will obviate the conduct issues. However, sometimes one or more editors are part of the problem and won't work with a mediator, or will undermine mediation. I find the mention of personal attacks troublesome, and the mention of legal threats even more troublesome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thought, unfortunately, is that if a subject has been taken to ANI four times, and three times it wasn't obvious what the problem was, so that it was archived without action (in one case there were short blocks), that the problem is one that requires an evidentiary approach, which is what ArbCom does, because the conduct issues are preventing the content issues from being resolved, and the ArbCom needs to determine how to break the conduct cycle by topic-bans or bans. So I would actually suggest filing a Request for Arbitration, pointing out that there have been four previous inconclusive ANI filings, and that the problem has not been solved for a year. Maybe ArbCom will take the case; I would ask them to take the case. If ArbCom doesn't take the case, the alternative is formal mediation, with all of the parties understanding that, in accordance with the mediation policy, any editor who disrupts the mediation should be blocked and probably topic-banned. I am hesitant to recommend mediation, only because I am concerned that mediation is likely to fail, and that it will then be necessary to go back to WP:ANI or ArbCom. So that is my recommendation, to request arbitration, because I think that formal fact-finding of who is at fault, and so needs to be topic-banned, is needed. Unfortunately, it looks like the sort of trouble area for which arbitration is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that I don’t even know where exactly XIII thinks there is advertisement.

Regarding legal threats, there clearly was not from my part, and Mr rnddude clearly told him so, but XIII went saying everywhere that I did some to him anyway.

In the SP page, I think things are advancing since Robminchin got involved. In PA the same since Mr rnddude got involved.

Wouldn’t first XIII saying exactly what he does not like (instead of calling me things) and then a request for comment on these be a good first step. Because he is pretty much trying to erase everything I write, and arbitration would be difficult since the dispute itself is not clear? I just wanted to wait for Mr rnddude, who knows about the article since we discussed it quite a lot in the talk page, to get back from holidays.

--Launebee (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Are you trying to get me into a conflict about tagging, about the addition or removal of templates? That is petty. Did you read my comments below? The purpose of maintenance templates is to identify a need for the improvement of an article. If there is agreement that an article needs tagging with maintenance templates, it is trivial to fight over which templates. Either discuss how to improve the article, or leave the article alone, but stop quarreling about whether to use one template or multiple templates. Either discuss how to improve the article, or request formal mediation to improve the article, or conclude that the article can't be improved until some of the disruptive editors are banned, in which case you should go to WP:ANI a fifth time, or go to ArbCom. It looks to me as though no one really wants to improve the article, only to assign blame, in which case ArbCom is the way to go, to topic-ban everyone and then request new editors. Alternatively, act constructive and stop quarreling about how many templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that I clearly improved the article with Mr rnddude. We discussed a lot, and I changed the article a lot according to what we agreed. On the contrary, as Mr rnddude noted, XIII only "contribution" was to revert my edits and put templates. @Mr rnddude: By the way, "PDD" means "Page de discussion" = talk page. But if you want the ad template to stay the time someone else says the article is ok, ok. --Launebee (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jumping into the middle of that shambles was a serious error in judgment on my part. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I should have RfPP'ed. If they show up and revert or what have you, then I'll drop a line on both AN and RfPP to request a semi-protect. It beggars belief that not one person thought of this simple solution to a dynamic IP hopping problem. It only needs to be in effect for a few hours to a day at most. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry for not doing the best job of keeping a cool head. I should have stayed away from that talk page. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ok SL93. I can't say with any confidence that the person currently using the IP would be the same person that was using it two months ago. They deny it being their edit, that doesn't give them a right to swing charges round on you. The attacks on you were repetitive, maliciously false, and with express intention to disreputed you by labelling you as a racist. Your responses were fully understandable. Many of us have our eyes on the page, one of us will eventually act accordingly. Happy Editing, :) Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the most recent revert [4] necessitate an appeal to RFPP?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TheGracefulSlick, I have a concern that this will spread like wildfire from page to page now. I don't think RfPP will take it as sufficiently demonstrative of requiring edit protection. Maybe if we take this in conjunction with the AN filing. I don't know. I'll add the page to my watchlist and monitor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you move a page from an incorrect title to the correct title, please don't tag the problem-title redirect for R3 speedy deletion. The advice you were given at WP:ANI is outright wrong: WP:R3 (the criterion's official text) specifically says "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move" unless the wrong-title page were created recently. This has a twofold reason: if someone made the typo when creating the page (or when moving the page to a new title, as was the case with The State Museum of the History of St. Petersburg), it's clearly not implausible, and because creating linkrot from long-established titles is basically always a bad idea unless the title is outright bad, e.g. it's an attack on someone. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend, Thanks for the information. I hadn't realized until after I'd posted that it wasn't brand new. I didn't know that R3 wasn't applicable to page moves and it was deleted as an R3 by RHaworth.[5] Seems pointless to restore it to me, but, if you think anybody will ever use it. There is the St. Peterburg redirect, so I s'pose it's plausible. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh ... and um ... I wasn't given the advice ... I gave the advice. Whoops. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome, and sorry for misreading the situation; I wondered why a user with six talk archives was unfamiliar with pagemoves, but sometimes we just don't have reason to learn something basic until after we've been around a long time :-) The basic issue for restoring this specific redirect is the page's long history at this title — people have had nearly five years to create off-wiki links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_Museum_of_the_History_of_St._Peterburg, and as several pages have links to the "Peterburg" spelling in several of their current revisions, unfixable links appear in lots and lots of old revisions, e.g. [6], [7], and [8]; deleting the redirect hurts the usefulness of these pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see Nyttend. That's why you brought up linkrot. Old revisions, and also, for the many mirror sites of Wikipedia that exist. Thanks again. Maybe you should explain to mramoeba as well, just so that I don't screw that up any further. Heh. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I'm particularly concerned about archive.org, since if I remember rightly they delete archives of a page once they're told not to index it, and I think I've seen somewhere that deleted pages are automatically marked for noindex somehow. I thought of advising Mramoeba, but I feared that it would make you look bad to say "You were told the wrong thing" — but since you suggested it, I did my best to explain the situation without complaining about you. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your insightful comments at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lingzhi, no problem. Glad my comments were helpful. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I read and appreciated pretty much everything you said in your reply to me on Softlavender's talk page. When I checked back in to thank you for it, though, I noticed you had butchered the most important part of it with this nonsense. I thought your comment worked a lot better with your just dryly stating that you had abused your admin privileges and leaving it to the reader to figure out how ridiculous that was. For shame. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.

Sincerely, Wittylama 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here.

I see your comments about me above. So, just to be clear, Wikipedia doesn't frown upon gratuitous posting of racist terms unrelated to article content on article talk pages? I doubt you're correct about this. Article talk pages are for discussing articles, not other users. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That gratuitous racist comment was originally posted from your IP address. SL93 made a note of that in their response to you. Now, you are not the person who posted the comment in the article originally, and it would normally run afoul of civil to attack you with it. Unfortunately, you then took the issue to AN and repeatedly called SL93 a racist. Pot meet kettle. Not the right response. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see racist remarks made all over the web. I have never copied one to paste and spread it elsewhere to attack the person saying it. SL93 pasted the actual racist remark, not a link to it, on an article talk page. Not on a user talk page. I think I called it well about the type of person who pastes racial slurs. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have had far too many people to thank, something over 300 of us. You're welcome in any case though. Good luck adminning at AfD and in general. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now thanked everyone, so now I need to study all of the administrator's instructions. Whew! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the analysis. May I point out one flaw? I don't make 90%+ of the MfDs, I just happened to have a unclosed batch that were 90% of the old business at a point in time. Check my post at the top of the thread to see mine were 13 or 14 out of about 31 active. Still a significant number but low enough your conclusion needs a second look. Thanks again. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I had meant to mean 90% of the current "draftspace" MfD's rather than 90% of MfD's. I also meant currently. I will revise that statement and see if any other of my conclusions need immediate amendment. Thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at Draftspace vs Userspace. I counted all open MfDs and it's a moving target of course. BTW based on my reading of WP:BANEX and the section just above that, commenting on an XfD started by the other party is normally not allowed, but commenting on one started by a 3rd party is fine. Hence the exception carved out originally - if my reading is not correct the exception makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that I can see that commenting on an XfD started by the other party wouldn't be allowed is if I take their comment on such an XfD to be a direct reply to you (which would fall under point 2. of WP:IBAN). I believe that's actually what Nihlus Kryik was trying to tell me, if that's the case then the exception and the upping to full IBAN would make sense. If not, then, I'm not sure what is achieved. That's actually why I made a comment rather than any kind of !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as explicit as it could be, which is why I quiried User:Primefac in the thread, but thinking about it more it seems "reply to each other in discussions;" appears to cover it. If you start a discussion that says Sucky Article should be deleted, and I reply "Keep because blah blah blah" I'm replying to your original post. However if someone else starts the deletion discussion on Even Worse Article and we both reply to that without commenting on each other's posts, we are both ok. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, hmm, well if that's the case then full IBAN will fit the purpose. If it's not, then it's not that difficult to just have it extended to cover your MfD nominations as a whole. I'll hat my giant comment and write a smaller one underneath. Taking up a lot of space as it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a sec. I'll show you something else. [9] over 82% match to the result and a high percentage of the 1500+ MfDs are started by me. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, thanks for the link. 82.3% match rate is significantly higher than I'd worked out based on my readings of the MfD noms currently on the page. Well, you'll have better days and worse ones. Extrapolating on my part was an error. I didn't know there was a tool for XfD stats. Will keep that, it might come in handy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is not working fully for me right now, but it's really useful for checking yourself against consensus amd defending yiurself if anyone ever says you are off the mark at an XfD. Here's another useful tool http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, coincidentally, my MfD stats are 0/1 (0%); Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polythesis/The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control. Haha. I have the editor interaction analyzer tool on my user page, I use it for cases like yours, but, I only needed to look at the post IBAN interactions and that accounted for about 40 edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just sharing a useful tool for future use, not suggesting anything here. Your vote was one target there, just had a deletion out of left field. One thing about the stats tool - the big percentage is only part of the story. To score a "match" to help your percentage you need an exact match like Vote Delete=Result Delete. Vote=Delete does not match Result=Speedy Delete or Result=Blank even when the effect is the same. The grid shows the outliers and the list shows the detail.

If you get interested in cleanup work and sorting good material from CSDable junk, check out my main userpage. I've collected some good links for that. I find it easy to click my username and find the links. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping regarding that ANI. I only saw it today after a rather nice weekend out. The community endorsed indef block was inevitable for Jack. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a very common citation style, according to MLA and Chicago Manual of Style. Although there are some other ways to do it, this is the one I prefer. I've tried some of the templates, and find them extremely cumbersome. See Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Hochkirch, Battle of Kunersdorf. In the latter, I did try a different style, and it made me craaaa-zeee. In the end, I always come back to this one as the easiest to read, and to type. auntieruth (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Auntieruth55, alright, thanks for the note. I started out using the Harvard APA6th style and moved to Wikipedia ((sfn)) format because it's both tedious to type out every single citation in APA6th (when that's a bibliography style) and it becomes difficult to navigate through source code when there's a lot of very long citation strands. I've just never seen the citation style that you use before. I've put in an ambiguity tag in one place on the article due to confusion as to who exactly is being referenced. I also need to query what citation is being used in one paragraph, and have put a CN tag there. Other than that, it looks to me to have met all the other B-class criteria. I did some prose work to get the B4, please review that to see if it meets your expectations. B3 and B5 are obviously met. I believe B2 has also been met. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a section higher up on your talk page, I notice you were previously active in discussions about this article. Lately the article made a new appearance at RFPP. The upshot was that the article was semiprotected four days by User:MelanieN and I wound up blocking the other editor mentioned in the RFPP for 3 days. Meanwhile, in an unrelated action, User:CambridgeBayWeather has fully protected Sciences Po for a month. Since the dispute on Panthéon-Assas University and at Sciences Po has been raging for many months, I wonder if you have any advice for admins. It's possible there is some COI editing and some sockpuppetry, but it would need to be documented so that action can be taken. One option might be long-term full protection of both articles, which would force the working out of the issues on the talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• EdJohnston, well, I was hoping that this had been resolved, but, no I'm not surprised it hasn't. I haven't looked at PA in a while, but, I did notice the recent spate of edit-warring as the article is on my watchlist. Conversely, however, I have stayed as far away from SP as humanly possible to avoid mixing conflicts. I had tried to help out at the PA article by bringing it up to B-class, but, when looking for sources to actually write the article I come up against the blockade that many useful sources are in French. Je ne parlez Francais (I think that's how you say it). Instead I then tried piece by piece to resolve the conflict on the talk page. Then came the new blockade, Launebee would implement some of my recommendations and also return the old content back into the article. XIII would then revert the change on the grounds that I had approved only some of the change. Which, to be fair, was accurate. The problem is, the improvements disappear with the reverts as well. Rinse and repeat. Zero sum game. Nothing short of a T/PBAN will resolve this. The article is under the watchful eyes of both editors and long term protection (even six months) will only put a halt on this conflict for that period. If there is a COI, for either editor, then that's all they're really here for as well. Just skim the last 500 edits and note that there's large (2-4 month gaps) between high activity periods (due to the conflict) starting in June of 2016. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burebista you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to translate articles regarding Italian sports from Italian version removing redirects on Pallone: do you understand my constructive intention?--Nonhosoldi (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr rnddude, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since that clearly failed horribly. Cheers, ansh666 00:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ansh666, I did take a look at the two links your re-provided me from question 3. I should say I'm more concerned with how you'll respond when you make a mistake, as will inevitably happen, rather than how you respond to queries suggesting you've made a mistake where you haven't. The measure of an admin is in their ability to deal with the errors in judgement that they make, not the good judement they exercise. Any admin can issue a good block, or delete the right page, etc etc. Far less often, in my experience, is an admin (person, really) able to admit to, and respond appropriate to, their error. Good luck and congratulations on passing your RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]