User talk:Causa sui/Archive15

what's with the tags?

Why do you tag a laboriously-cited point (with overlapping references) is cited as when the appropriate reference is found before or after? You could at least check nearby references, especially since it was obvious that the 14k reference was from the Forbes reference. I mean what other reference would discuss property prices and financial matters in such great deal? (I mean I plan to add more references for Range's financial condition....but Forbes remains the primary financial reference, which you could have simply checked.)

Furthermore, it's ugly to cite the reference many times in a row if there are no interrupting references. This is because a block of text (several paragraphs) summarises the information from Forbes. It would be citekill to cite that reference every paragraph if there are no interrupting references. I have tried to interweave overlapping references where necessary, but please do not tag obviously-cited points with . (Each time you tag a statement I wrote with , when it's obvious which reference the statement is drawing upon, you're accusing me of editorial dishonesty.) I appreciate it if you would be considerate. Thanks. :) elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't interpret a {{fact}} as accusing you of editorial dishonesty. In general I think it's critical to cite all direct quotes, and to have at least one citation per paragraph. That is, I don't think it's as obvious as you think that a citation in the following paragraph is meant to cover content in preceding paragraphs. But these are general statements. If there are specific tags you have in mind, we can talk about how to make it more clear what is cited to what. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Further protection needed

Hello, sorry to come to you, but as it was you who protected the article Yugoslav Partisans I thought it would perhaps be appropriate to ask you to keep the protection in place for longer, as none consensus was archived, and the protection will resume today. What happend is that I made a big effort in order to archive consensus at talk page, however other participants had not show adequate will in order to discuss the disputes. We didn´t archived consensus in either one point, much less in the several which are in question in the dispute that led to the edit-war. As I am alone I suspect the other participants felt more easy to wait for the protection to resume, and then insert the same disputed edits in the article and edit-war knwing they are in advantage in numbers. The problem is that I exposed lack of sources for the claims, and no new sources were presented. I also provided the adequate policies to be applied, but I was pretty much ignored. To make things even worste, my entire attempt to focus on article content was also ignored, and I was confronted with a series of large posts of personal attacks completely unrelated to article content. At the end even direct trolling against me was added. I absolutely have no doubts that this was an intentional behavior in order to avoid the discussion for the time the article is protected. This is where the discussions took place Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute new subsection. You can see by yourself the evasive attitude towards dispute solution. I tryied to explain the situation here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_and_disruptive_behavior_in_discussion, but for time being I receved only one comment from someone non-involved, which provided support for my view. PRODUCER is an active participant in the discussion who also made no effort in order to archive consensus, and Animate is a usual defensor of DIREKTOR at any ANI report, allways doing his best to discredit anyone reporting him (I will perfectly provide you diffs from past reports where Animate tried the same despute clear evidence of DIREKTOR´s disruption.

Causa sui, I just want someone to help me to enforce a discussion in order to archive consensus and avoid the same old situation that lead us here. They purpously waited 3 days gaming the system and providing no sources, and hoping that by avoiding a serios discussion will archive to insert the same old challenged material in the article. That is why I beleave that it is crutial to keep the article protected in order not to incentivate such behavior in future. If you have time, please see what happend in the discussion and everything will be clear. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts and for your efforts to resolve the dispute. At this time I am inclined to decline to extend protection. I will explain more on the talk page, so please let me know what you think there. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adressing my concerns, however without your supervision and help I don´t see how could be possible to have am adequate discussion there. As you can see each of my concerns, even if valid and painfully admited by some users, are allways followed by manipulating accusations towards me. As I stand lone there against a group of users, every concern of mine is understood as offensive by them and without external enforcement is ignored. It seems impossible for me to have a content discussion there. I left you an expanded explanation and a question at the talk page. I will anyway take this opportunity to wish you happy Hollydays. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The edit war was just restored. FkpCascais (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  It looks like you were reverted once. I would appreciate your not reverting. Dispute resolution and WP:DRN may help you get this hammered out if the talk page is getting nowhere. causa sui (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was reverted? This was not my edit-war... Also, the revert itself also removes sourced information, what about that?

You declined my protection request by mentioning the value of the talk page, however you are not being consistent with your own words and actions. I am not going to revert not because you appreciate but because it was never my intention to be part of it (as btw you can already appreciate it, because if I wanted to, I would have reverted it immediatelly after the edit-war was restored). You just prooved to be wrong about refusing my protection request, as, just as I suspected, the one of the main edit-war participants has just restarted it right after the protection was lifted. Either your intervention is fair and your recomendations are to be respected, or otherwise your intervention ended up clearly favouring one side in the dispute, and, in this case, the side tat didn´t followed your recomendations. Btw, I want be able to contribute much these next couple of days, but when I return I will certainly retake the discussion and see at what point we are. FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind when I speak to you frankly, because I think you need to understand what motivates me here. I'm much more interested in de-escalating the dispute and doing what's best for the article than I am in fairness. This is about the encyclopedia, not you. causa sui (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FDR unblock request

Regarding the unblock request that you placed on hold at User talk:FDR#December 2011, "waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator" - do you realise that the blocking admin, User:Rodhullandemu, is no longer an admin and is ArbCom banned from editing? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I wasn't sure how else to note that I'm reviewing the block, though. If it's confusing, please revert me. causa sui (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I understand - default template behaviour. I don't think there's a need to revert - just adding a comment to say you're reviewing it and not really waiting on RH&E should make it clear -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ask my wife to behoove me later ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:La goutte de pluie". Thank you. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for "not shooting the messenger".  Chzz  ►  03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Toumanova

I appreciate that you took interest in Tamara Toumanova page but it seems that you have protected the page with false citations, and without bothering to check them individually, which I previously did. When someone is trying to insert false citations like ancestry.com listing continuously and without explaining himself/herself on the talk page, like I did, the user is supposed to be warned/blocked, and not the page with the vandals citation. You have not only reinstated the mess we cleaned up but forced us to the talk page where clearly legitimate sources, including Tamara Toumanovas own words seem to have no value for these editors. How can you demand that we waste our time with these single-purpose accounts when they refuse to be convinced by the very words of the personality in question? If you want to be helpful, go through the sources one by one and serve as an arbiter but do not legitimate POV pushing by blocking the page in its present shape.--Andriabenia (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a concern from another reliable user that you blocked the page with citations that were previously proved to be inaccurate or insufficient.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I always take care to protect m:The Wrong Version. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Andriabenia

Hello, Causa sui! Could you please check this users latest contributions? He/she deletes a lot of sourced info from various articles with a purpose to made them totally Georgian. BTW he acts very similar to previously blocked User:OxfordGeo and his socks. Rast5 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything is explained on my official complaints against user:rast5 -Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_and_deletion_of_consensus-based_information_by_user:rast5--Andriabenia (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrying ethnic disputes onto Wikipedia is better than taking up arms against each other in real life, I guess... causa sui (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

highpoint lowlife record label page

what kind of person deletes a full functioning independent music labels wikipedia page because you are too lazy to find out that it is indeed very notable and has released music from artists all over the world? Do you find it somehow empowers you to delete information about an existing and notable record label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.60.104 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Laura Ramsey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laura Ramsey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I think she's notable enough that the block should be lifted. I don't know what the deleted article looked like, but an editor who can make a page look nice and properly credit her for her work (which is fairly substantial, 22 roles is a decent career) might make the page stick. Also note how many other pages link to the Laura Ramsey article. JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

recreated article

Hi, did you notice that the Ramsey article was recreated in main space? It seems a bit out of process to me. Do you have any objections the recreation? What is the situation now with the open DRV ? Youreallycan (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Laura Ramsey

Hi there,

Sorry for doing something wrong by re-creating the article in the mainspace -- I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand-alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here?

I posted at the DR thread because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (not just copied and pasted, but filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in the References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out) and wikilinks into a new article.

What else could be discussed here if I didn't make the article all over again? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits?

What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article. JesseRafe (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You raise some interesting philosophical points about deletion process, but what I think you really want is a copy of the article so you can improve it. If you like, I will move the article to your userspace so you can spend some time to bring it more in line with the notability policy without worrying that it will be deleted out from under you. This would be a good way to draft new articles in general.

To your other point, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did restore the article with the previous revision visible in the history before you recreated the new version. Those revisions are still visible to non-admins here: [1].

causa sui (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have no experience with this userfy aspect, but now in retrospect it makes sense when I came across that over the past couple of days of this discussion. My honest question, though, is did you look at it freshly this time, or just see that it was recreated when it shouldn't've been (not the right timing for that process) and delete it for that? Because looking at the links now, I can see that previously the only source was IMDb and it was just an infobox and list of movies, but in my version, there's a paragraph of prose and references to several well-known publications that have given her write-ups or interviewed her. My intention was to create this article from nothing, sorry if I appeared to have just reinstated a version that was already put to vote and deleted, but I think that as I had it before, were it to be nominated anew it would pass notability. JesseRafe (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that it was different, and I think made some important steps to establishing notability. However, it was not a good idea to do this while the deletion review was still in process. AFD discussions are generally held to be binding and while they don't necessarily prohibit recreation if the new version fully addressed the concerns raised in the AFD, it would confuse the process to have a new revision in the works while the DRV was trying to consider the old one. It may have been better to go with one or the other, but not both.

Please let me know if and when you would like me to userfy the article. Regards, causa sui (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, again, I really had no idea what the Deletion Review process was for. That seemed to be the only place to post what I thought was merely a request to lift the ban on non-admins editing the page (or even viewing its past iterations). It was not my intention to confuse the process or to engage in two at the same time, but merely the one. The only one I was familiar with, AfD. It would seem odd to me to go back and look at something already found wanting, and come to a new consensus about its merits without having something new and shiny to look at.

Also, I only vaguely understand the userfy concept. But at your convenience, yes, please userfy it. Would you put it on your page or mine? I don't know how much more time I have to devote to this one article, but I think it's worth some more effort to get it out here, as she truly is notable. I mean, they can read about her in Viet Namese and Finnish, but not English! JesseRafe (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. I view your confusion not at all as a strike against you, but rather as evidence that our deletion process is much too complicated if it takes seven years of experience to make sense of it. Your good faith is evident and your efforts to improve Wikipedia are greatly appreciated. Thank you!

To userfy the article, I will move it to a subpage in your user-space. I will also leave a message on your talk page explaining where I put it. You can then edit to your heart's content and, once you think it is good to go, ask me or anyone else to review it and move it back. I need a couple minutes to wrap something up here and then I will go ahead and do that. Thanks again for your patience and your work here. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done. I would also point out that the sourcing policy does not prohibit using non-English sources in citations. If there are sources in Finnish or Vietnamese that demonstrate notability, please include them. See WP:NOENG. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

user keeps removing citation needed tags at Union Carbide

AFAIK, the statement needs to be sourced per WP:V, and the user insists on using his anecdotal knowledge as a source. Could I have intervention please. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look without promising anything. FYI, for more visibility, there's also WP:RS/N. causa sui (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren^C 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

dropping you the line

Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Integration_into_Mediawiki

Now just watch it ... ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically, How would you answer Redrose.. if you were to answer? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I left a comment. By the way, you might also be interested in a proposal I made over here. I'd like to know what you think. causa sui (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav Partisans

Hello Causa sui. At Talk:Yugoslav Partisans#Protection you mention having read part of this talk page when considering a request to protect the article. If you have some familiarity with the dispute, your comment would be welcome at User talk:EdJohnston#WP:AE, where FkpCascais is asking for reconsideration of his six month topic ban as imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#FkpCascais. Some, but not all editors at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans seem to think that FkpCascais was jumping through hoops to avoid admitting that sources show the Chetniks to have engaged in ethnic cleansing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could

If you could take a moment to look at the request posted here and make a response stating whether you think the draft should be inserted into mainspace, i'd appreciate it. Silverseren^C 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Causa sui,

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) 02:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello ( case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daviz_Logic )

Hello, why you has deleted my text and info?

All is verified, please make sure be inform before to delete, my info is related about a musician, tell me something, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delemeje (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Olivia Holt

Hello. Would you mind unlocking this page so it can be created? Olivia Holt currently meets notability guidelines, where she is a series regular on Kickin It. I also have some sources to verify notability, [2], [3], [4] and [5] (a video where she talks about her career and personal life). Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much time for Wikipedia in recent weeks so it may be a little while before I can look at this. You might try WP:RFPP. causa sui (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Phenom (musicians)

Hello you recently deleted our article "Phenom (musicians)." I believe it was due to lack a of references. We are receiving an inconvenience or punishment for not having overflowing press releases or articles on overselves and thats just unfair. We are willing to provide any necessary information to validate that EVERYTHING written in the previously mentioned article is all FACT. Wikipedia is a site for information available to the world for people to gain an understanding or further awareness of all things. In this case information was taken away from the world due to a particular or select group of persons not having the knowledge of its existence. I understand there are certain guidelines to be followed and I'm willing to make sure they are met. So as previously stated we are prepared to provide any necessary information needed to have this article back up and your help to make sure the article is done right to prevent future concerns. Thanks in advance.

Thanks again, Phenom PhenomenalEnt (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page

While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silverseren^C 03:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Causa sui. 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! 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User script list deprecation

Wikipedia's list of user scripts is in bad shape, in that it is disorganized and contains many non-working, unmaintained, or thoroughly obsolete entries. Cleanup has been on the to-do list since 2007, but little progress has been made. Instead, the whole list is now set to be deprecated on 1 May 2012, to be replaced with a new list. This draft list has been up for about a month, and in that time I've been soliciting script users and authors to come add scripts they know to be working and relevant.

If you know of scripts that you would like to survive this deprecation (and are confirmed working and relevant), you're welcome to add them to the new list. Note that the old list will be retained and linked from the main list, so there is no real deadline. Thanks for your help. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:55, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I think I want this diacritics disruption to end as much or more than anyone. I a few days ago RM-ed the last 15 tennis BLPs into line with every other BLP on en.WP . Given the overwhelming support I was expecting that to be the end of it. I understand your annoyance, because I share it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification

WikiThanks

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Reply to questions by Fæ. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles to watch

Can you help watch List of rampage killers and List of rampage killers: Americas? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't see evidence of edit warring yet, luckily. If it recurs (and it almost surely will) you may get the fastest response at WP:RFPP. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of any other articles where he could be popping up? What is your opinion of his appearance in James Holmes? It certainly seems like a plausible search term and I'm sure many people are using that to get to the shooting page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As of this writing the disambig page for James Holmes reads "James Eagan Holmes (b. 1987), alleged shooter in the 2012 Aurora shooting" which is fine with me. Not sure where else we should be looking. causa sui (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

With your help

Could you check out this section here? Last thing to do on the page, for once, and i've been leaving the user hanging for quite a while. :/ Silverseren^C 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Laura Ramsey - deletion block lift?

Hey there, thanks for userfying that page. Was gonna leave you a message but just saw this here. Weird. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, that episode made me cease caring for a while. I responded on my talk page, thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Regarding the Obama photo in the Aurora article - I am not sure if you are simply missing the point of the discussion or not. In any event, please review archive 3 here [[6]]. The objections to which you allude are regarding the nature of the original picture, which was initially a generic publicity photo of the president talking on the phone. The initial reversion of the photo was justified by User:Ianmacm by saying "The reason why I removed the photo had nothing to do with politics. The photo of George W Bush in Virginia Tech massacre is much more tightly focused, because it shows him after giving a speech on campus. A similar photo of Barack Obama visiting the victims of the Colorado shooting in hospital etc would also be ideal." Such a photo was introduced by User:Chaser and supported by User:JamesAM, User talk:Ryan Vesey, User:331dot, me here, neutral from User:Ianmacm though it does seem to coincide with his/her comments above, and negative only from you. That's 5 in favor, 1 neutral, and 1 opposed. Your reversions of the picture in question thus appear to be a substitution of individual judgment over what in most Wiki articles is certainly a clear enough consensus for inclusion. Sensei48 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Causa sui, please don't edit war. We appear to have consensus to include this image, and quite frankly, I don't know why you object to it. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. causa sui (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warnings go on the user talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest that it would have been better in the first instance to point out what Sensei48 said above to me, rather than reverting and trying to make this into a confrontation. Then I'll leave it there. causa sui (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)