User talk:Only in death

Now Open. If you leave a message here, I will respond either here, or at the talkpage of an article if it is article related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed or even appropriate -- you were correct I didn't summarize the consensus as well as I could have, (while not intentionally dictating I was being imprecise). The updated phrasing is better.Nobody Ent 15:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm going to go ahead and make the edits you proposed to the first paragraph; I'll wait on the other editor so he can share his input on the second (as well as the first if he wishes). Thanks for your input on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did make one minor change that doesn't affect the tone of the passage - I identified Dimebag Barrell as the deceased guitarist of Patnera, the same way Burton is identified as the deceased bassist for Metallica. I think that makes sense from an encyclopedic standpoint since reader may not be familiar with him. If you don't agree with that, it might make sense just to remove anything but their names, and the reader can click on their articles for details. I think it makes sense to include it since the reason it was so offensive is because they're both dead, and the reason it came up was it was the anniversary of Burton's death.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dimebag side, I'd tend to agree - perhaps I should simply add a brief mention and a link regarding the murder and his other band.

In regards to Blabbermouth, I just want to be clear on the course of events. On December 3rd Blabbermouth did a story about an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine, including comments the band made about Motley Crue as well as the two deceased artists in question. Blabbermouth was not the only source for that story. On December 7th, Blabbermouh reported a statement from someone claiming to be in the band that made light of the comments, stating they were a bad joke and not meant to offend. I expressed my concern to H early in our interaction that the verbiage, tone and language in this apparently fake statement was similar (to me, obviously) to what apparently appeared in Slayer Fazine. FInally, on December 8, Blabbermouth reported receiving another statement from the band clarifying that the earlier statement was fake, and that they meant and approved their statements regarding the deceased musicians. Now, while I've certainly heard accusations of bias on the part of blabbermouth, I've never seen annything indicating they've patently made things up... I feel like this would need to be cited in order to mention it.

That said, one of my issues has always been that I don't really understand what the band means to convey in their Slayer interview - are they denying that they ever made the first remarks in SWM, or just the later statements? If someone could clarify this, perhaps that could be added to the second paragraph (eg, the band later denied abc...), and if there's a verifiability source that mentions a specific instance of blabbermouth making something up, I'd be open to including that in the second paragraph as well.

In order to facilitate discussion with all parties involved, particularly when two of those parties aren't interested in interacting with one another directly, perhaps it makes most sense to move copies of our user talk page discussions to the article talk page? If you agree to this I can do so in chronological order, or you can do it with my consent. If you feel that each of us should put our own comments there, let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. And boy, does 84.123.80.174 seem quite an enthusiastic Spanish fan. Glad to see I'm not the only one keeping watch on that kind of fannishness. Regards to you, Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep that in mind, but I actually meant possibly libelous. By the way, don't you think the Twitter part needs some editing and shortening too? It maybe WP:WEIGHT in its current from. Also, there are is some weasel wording, like how the tweet attributed to the subject is presented as as an undisputed fact, yet Homan Majd's response is written as "he claimed" as oppose to "in his defense, he said". Kurdo777 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps an attribution to National Post would be appropriate, given the newspaper's previous controversies, having to do with the accuracy of their reporting. Do you agree? Kurdo777 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do get involved. He's claiming BLPPRIMARY bans the use of the content.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the way it was explained to me is how people navigate the page esp if they are vision impaired and have it read to them. Rowspan and cellblock colors and whatnot affect that and make it difficult. Accessibility <-- More info there. Hope that helps :) Lady Lotus (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm leaving this message because you helped bring about a compromise between two warring editors (1,2) here. It appears one of them (the first) has retired and the other has used the opportunity to reverse the compromise, even going so far as describing his intent here and here. Having been involved early in the initial disagreement I'd like to not see it erupt into a fight once again, though I'm hesitant to re-involve myself fully once I get home from work and sign on. If you wish the same I can't say I blame you. --129.33.1.37 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TDA is capable of (and as far as I can see, is doing so) defending himself well enough. I only commented before due to the off-topic attacks at WQA. I find its best with some people not to enable their obsessions by engaging with them. Suggest you do the same. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - there have been too many other recent RFAs de-railed by off-topic bickering. I'd hate to see anymore happen. RFA is fragile enough at the moment as it is. GiantSnowman 16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seems to have removed my comment on a different thread. Did you get an edit conflict message? NE Ent 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	. Greg Holden 08 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please restore my edit to the sharyl attkisson article. here is the full legitimate reliable source: Gill, Kay Who, a Directory of Prominent People (2006) p. 31. the page is protected now for some reason so i cannot edit it, thank you very much. Coubelle (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I dont have authority to put an edit through protection like that unfortunately. The way to edit a protected article is to post a request on the talk page. There is actually one already there from the last time the article was protected so you can see how its done. I have dropped a note on the protecting admins page as I feel six months is a bit excessive. But the article has had issues before with people edit-warring over content. When someone disagrees with you and removes content, its better to head to the talk page and discuss it, rather than just reinserting it. Especially on a page thats been protected before, as it may (as happened in this case) get protected again very quickly. As to the source, I can see the book exists, and that she appears in it. So I am happy (absent anything saying otherwise) its accurate. There are additional issues that historically BLP's tend to attract some negative attention from the subjects when it comes to facts like age. Especially for people in the media. So my personal opinion is its better not to have them. Its not relevant to their biography in most cases, so no pressing need to have it included. (Other than for completeness). Either way, its something that needs to be discussed on the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, thanks.

Also - mmm, Tunnock's Tea Cakes! — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your user name makes me think,

If you could hear, at every jolt, the rage-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, drama board posts on editors' tongues;

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some talk page glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro Consilium Arbitratus mori.

(With massive apologies to Wilfred Owen) — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Warhammer 40'000 reference. Given the 'Imperium of Man' in WH40k does somewhat resemble a cross between Imperial Rome & the Catholic Church - latin is probably the way to go. The WH imperial schtick being that duty to the emperor (and by extension, the imperium, as the emperor is a dessicated corpse kept alive by machinery with no direct input on the imperium... hmm too many easy jibes here) comes before everything else, and your duty only ceases when you expire. When I originally chose it, I meant it as a comment on the wikipedia admin & editor corps at the time, as my interactions with most of them until that point (and still currently for the most part) have almost always been as a tireless entity devoted to making wikipedia better. Sadly a few bad apples have soured the bunch recently. Sadly I cant really change the meaning of the name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been something I've been discussing with the arbitrators, but we haven't yet decided on revdelete vs. blanking or a mixture of the two. I'm sure we'll announce it on the case pages once we've come to a decision. Thanks for your comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate side effect of cases dragging along, especially in PD phases, is unnecessary comments and parthian shots by involved parties. As stated before, the pages are going to get blanked; user conduct after the case is finally closed are going to be what counts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the diff of "the accusing/offending diff of VM's on Jimbo's talkpage that Russavia linked above " in your statement. I can't find it.  Sandstein  12:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death, as you asked on Jimbos talkp for sources for my claim of a court decision about unlinked hosting, here you are: primary, secondary, secondary. All sources are in German, as they were decisions of German courts, one of a Landgericht (2nd-level court) and one of a Oberlandesgericht (3rd-level court). --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I should have guessed it was Germany. You guys are ahead of the pack when it comes to privacy and copyright most of the time. Thanks for the info! Dont worry, I have a German collegue I can bribe to do some translation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the essential question in these cases was whether hosting/leaving an image file on your server (even after you removed any links from your website) constitutes "publication" in the legally relevant sense to infringe one others copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree it would be good to move it here, and thank you for trying to help out. The Ghost in the Shell issue was the first interaction with Lucia Black and Ryulong. I reviewed the GAN at Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1 and raised numerous concerns with the lack of content and got a few third opinions which agreed their were concerns which Niemti covered in some detail. Though she began making personal attacks calling me 'biased' in with my review.[1] She raised the issue at multiple places like WT:GAN and A&M. Made an RFC to oppose the failed GAN.[2] and took me to ANI in the middle of the discussion.[3] Which was closed without issue.[4] She was even warned for making personal attacks at the ANI and other venues, I can pull those if you want, but like her long history of altering comments, that is behavior rather than content. I've had over 50 pages worth of discussion at the archived of Ghost in the Shell and a lengthy DRN discussion which I had to close as no one would take it. I tried to get the matter resolved at the currently viewable Talk:Ghost in the Shell matter, but dropped it because it was getting out of hand. The entire conflict boiled down to whether or not a topic-level article should exist to cover the 30 different titles and works in the Ghost in the Shell IP. Dragon Ball Z appears to be a proxy for that discussion now, with me wanting a proper page to summarize the contents. Talk:Dragon Ball is a huge boring read, but just like GITS, the underlying concept is incredibly simple. GITS had a topic level article, Lucia and Ryulong forced a merge despite outside editors disagreeing but not remaining involved in the dispute. Dragon Ball Z previously existed, was merged for violating "MOS-AM" in 2008 and the RFCs seem to invalidate the reason and have majority support and policy backing to recreate the article, but that discussion has life again when they reverted my re-creation. I'm considering wiping the slate on both of those and wanting a third party to mediate or put forth conditions for recreation of the Dragon Ball Z article. Here's the prototype: User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox. I have been working on it for some time, but it is not perfect and still is rough in spots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry for delay, been a busy day. A few things 1.)I agree the merge was unwarranted - MOS-AM does not over-ride policy when it comes to notability and reliable sourcing. 2.) Saying that, its been awhile, so rather than de-merge. The best option given the wealth of material on DBZ would be to re-write the article to bring it up to current standards (as you are doing in your draft), incorporate anything from the DB article that applies, then move it to articlespace and delete the content from DB if its duplicated in the DBZ article. If the consensus on the DB talkpage is to keep the duplicated info there, then it can be kept there. But to delete a stand-alone article on a notable subject once its live in will require an AFD. I would consider (and I am not talking from 'good' or 'featured' article perspective) a well laid out example of a franchise article to be something like Conan the Barbarian. Page on franchise & the universe, main characters etc, small sections on each offshoot (TV, Films, videogames etc) with links to articles on that particular media. I have not delved deeply into the GITS issue yet. Will take a look later, for now my dinner will shortly be in the cat unless I rescue it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that Ryulong will not allow it to exist, he reverts it and says it's 'against consensus'. The sandbox is already a full fledged article in its own right. This is how he forced the removal of the Ghost in the Shell franchise article with Lucia Black. They called my objection 'edit warring' and rather than follow policy or AFD it, just do it on their own. It was not submitted for merge nor AFD; they just 'boldly merged' which I reverted and they then forced. In both cases the articles were proper and should not have been merged back; the 2008 matter can be laid to rest because the new version is superior. Ryulong knows better and does not like me pushing for policy based arguments; but it is because his "rhetoric" goes against policy. I do not know how to appropriately deal with this problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know how I would instinctively deal with the problem. But I am going to ask advice from someone first. I may be making some bold edits later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, avoid the GITS matter for now. Please. That is an absolute mess and I do not have a large majority(5/6:2) for it. I don't want to cause any more trouble than necessary. I'm in a fairly good mood because some of my handiwork got mentioned in the news again and I'm glad the influx of readers will see correct content. GITS mattered to me because 60000 people see it a month, but I am not yet ready to commit to two disputes at a time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasnt going to touch the GITS issue. Although its related, in argument at least.

Essentially I think you should just take the article out of your sandbox at this point. Its large enough and well sourced enough. The article wont qualify for a speedy delete, as its substantially different from the previously deleted (well redirected) article. So it will need to go through AFD. I cant see it not surviving an AFD nomination easily. The only problem I have its not very, well, nice way to go about it. But I dont see much choice at this point given the arguments that are being thrown up. Merging it into the main DB article is really not an option. The main DB article should really be a franchise/IP article covering the franchise as a whole anyway, rather than, as it does currently, try to comprehensively cover everything. Its a bit of a mess. If I were to get started myself I would start by culling a lot of the fluff/extra stuff that doesnt apply to the whole franchise, then advise people to start a separate article if they want that there. I am asking some advice of people whose opinion I respect, but I am leaning towards *forcing* a policy based discussion. Which means taking the concept of a 'DB Z' article to a deletion request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit dramatic to say; it may even be incorrect because it is my assumption, but it seems that Lucia Black sees it as a proxy for the GITS debate. The merits of the article seem to be less important than defeating me as previously indicated in a conversation with Ryulong. She actually advised Ryulong to not compromise because it would end up essentially as I wanted. Ryulong has been removing such conversations rather than archiving them. But here is a version before it was wiped out. [5] The top three sections should cover the nature of it better than I can. I edit conflicted this post, but I understand. Lucia is out of her block and will be able to participate; I believe it would be best to notify both parties and give them a chance to defend their views. The action will be seen as a bit rough; but at least it will have weight and be better then continuing this 5 month content conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut tells me it would be better to let people have their chance to defend/make their position at a more formal venue like an AFD rather than the talkpage. Less wriggle-room to avoid discussing wikipedia policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what must be done to bring this to focus and does that mean I should stop working on the article in the sandbox? Its at 65 references and about 40kb, but its not yet done. I'm just not satisfied with it yet, but I do believe it should exist in mainspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wont be doing anything tonight I feel, :) so work on it as much as you want. Might want to move it to mainspace tomorrow. I read most of it earlier and had some thoughts though, would you prefer I lay them out on talk? Or wait until its in main? or edit the sandbox directly? Minor things really, just a matter of phrasing and layout. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and edit it, it may be my sandbox, but it has existed only to further the development of the article for mainspace. I don't mind at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... I'm still not feeling up for pushing back to mainspace; I'd probably get dragged to ANI again if I do. Is there a way to bring this to a larger community discussion and override the otherwise guaranteed revert if that page goes live again? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay, had unexpected guests on weekend. Its your article, so whatever you think best. A softer approach would be a decent RFC somewhere that isnt at the dragonball article. It might be best to wide-range it in scope - so concentrate on the franchise aspect rather than the specific media. The talkpage of the MOS might be best. Send out invites to various wikiprojects (as the franchise covers TV, film, manga, videogames, an invite for those respective projects can be neutral enough and not be classed as canvassing.) should be able to get enough commentators on how to handle multi-medium franchises. I have some free time this evening so want me to draft up an RFC in my sandbox on 'Franchises' as an example? There is no hurry anyway so it doesnt need to be a quick thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it probably shouldn't be started by me if at all possible, but I'd like to create the page first and push it out before dealing with yet another dispute which will surely restart the conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested? The editors seem to have moved on; so I think bringing the page up to a more formal setting would be good to ending the dispute now that things have cooled off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes still interested, sorry for delay, had to go away on short notice (family thing). I have just been trying to bring myself up to speed and noticed LB is back at ANI. I am refraining from commenting so as not to draw accusations in future of bias regarding the article. Probably best approach really at this point. I will be at work for about 8 hours then I will take a look. Once again, sorry for late reply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is light as a feather and duty heavier then a mountain. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I have been meaning to read the Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors but I never find the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post at Talk:Dragon_Ball#DBZ_creation; I want to push the sandbox back to mainspace. Previously, the majority sided with recreate and the policies back recreate; objections without policy backing based on "rhetoric" were all that prevented it. WP:JDLI seems to apply to the opposition because consensus on the merge rational has changed and its argument overthrown. Probably the single best example is that all the problems of the original page have been completely updated and improved; the page is not a pile of fancruft and boasts 66 references in this prototype variant. One it is live, improving it will be a better collaborative effort. I think it is not proper to revert its creation at this point; AFD should be required as you mentioned. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic editor you've been dealing with on this has just been topic banned from editing lists, so please feel free to return to your work on this unhindered, and to revert any improper removals. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right now there is a DRN regarding the issue, its best to revert it until the matter is settled. you can add your 2 cents in the DRN, but only until the matter is settled. right now there is no consensus on it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've reverted your edits to the pages because of this DRN issue. Please do not restore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be working on it and circumventing an ongoing discussion just because you arbitrarily agree with one side over the other.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose be done with List of Ghost in the Shell chapters which originally was Ghost in the Shell (manga) until the shit that happened earlier this year?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Talk:Ghost in the Shell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only, thanks for your comments at AE.

You said "If its too restrictive, he can appeal to the community or Arbcom and attempt to get it lifted."

Well, actually the community cannot overturn an Arbcom decision. However I did request an amendment, just over a year ago, to prevent exactly this sort of abuse, sadly the request was discarded out of process, due to the actions of Sandstein. I mention this in my notes on the AE page.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please see my response to you on the talk page regarding the unnecessary and redundant content duplication that was added to the article concerning the side media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what caught Ryulong's attention, but I am done dealing with him. He's announced such disdain for the subject and actively degrades content while surrounding himself in conflicts all over Wikipedia. Its a waste of time. As much as I want millions of more readers to get comprehensive coverage of our topics - I'll not suffer through Ryulong or anyone else's poor behavior to do it. I've gotten over 20 GAs with another 25 GANs in processing. I got my first featured list and all the prospects are good. I wouldn't waste your time dealing with any petulant people in the future. The people most in need of help are incapable of willingly accepting it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For stepping up on the issue of accessibility in the Signpost comments, with the appropriate words and in the appropriate tone. It was a fine line between saying nothing or speaking too softly and speaking too harshly. You managed to hit the mark admirably. Good luck with your editing endeavors. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim here. Your comments were very helpful. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. Your comments were perfect, especially the bit about 'thoughtless lack of consideration from others' on a daily basis and how it is easy to get used to that. There are times when I tell people some of the simple things they can do to help, there are other times when I don't bother (but know I probably should). I've made another follow up suggestion on The ed17's talk page. If you and others, such as Cullen328, would be interested in putting something together about this, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we've met before, so it is abnormal for you to start out by attacking me. Some users change accounts as often as they change underwear, to avoid blocks, bans, or scrutiny of their actions for a variety of reasons. If you are a brave and honorable person you'll you want me to take you seriously, please introduce yourself properly. Please explain why you are taking an interest in me and whether our paths have crossed before, either with this account or any prior account you might have used. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a bog-standard? NE Ent 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You intervention in ANI on behalf of the Eurovision IP was noted and very much appreciated. Thank you very much!-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been awhile. Good to see you again! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent comments on my talk page. Even after 5+ years I'm still learning my way around. My gut instinct at the moment is still to give the editor concerned time to explain, and then let higher powers decide what they meant. Thanks for being helpful. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Oddball Barnstar
		To Only in death, thank you for your interesting and amusing analysis of female & male RfAs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and help with the article, much appreciated. User:pablodejaniro —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's [6] really not so bold if you're unwilling to sign it (see WP:SIGNHAT). NE Ent 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I just checked the notepad txt file I still have open (I usually format stuff like archive/hats etc and I have signed it there, I think I just didnt cutnpaste properly! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of courtesy to people we discuss on Wikipedia, comments such as calling someone "a nobody" should be avoided. Even if you feel a person is not notable or that his or her writings do not constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, that does not make the person "a nobody," nor should such a person be referred to as such on one of the most prominent websites in the world. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be avoided is non-notable wikipedia-affiliated people puffing themselves up on one of the most prominent websites in the world safe in the knowledge their biography (CV) is unlikely to be deleted due to their insider status. Sadly we dont always get what we want. I also cant believe you wasted the time to post this when previously in your stint as an arbiter you are personally partly responsible for the lack of adherance to the civility pillar/policies due to your unwillingness to enforce them. In short, just no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the person's having a mainspace article or not. If the person were not notable enough to be the subject of an article, it would be at least as important to refrain from insulting her needlessly. My voting as an arbitrator has nothing to do with the matter, but in any event, in that capacity I may or may not have had too much tolerance for intra-Wikipedia bickering among contributors, but I had very little tolerance at all for gratuitously denigrating people's personal and professional accomplishments. And as an administrator now, my feelings are to the same effect, and I instruct you never to make a comment like that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give your 'instruction' all the consideration it deserves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, on round two you caught on to what my issues were regarding the Harry Jaffee business. I agree that include/exclude based on UNDUE would be a content dispute, but at the moment we have someone being stubborn, claiming personal knowledge, and not being communicative. Choor monster (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree RE the personal knowledge issue, unfortunately I hesitate to involve myself in the article as (from an admittedly brief look) I dont think it really needs to be in there (per UNDUE) as he (Harry) is a non-notable person. However I lack knowledge of the subject (Al) and not having read the biography I cant comment on what impact his brother and his brother's personal life had on him (Al) and his work. Your best bet is to take it to DRN or other content-related board, if the best argument Modernist comes up with is "I know the family and they dont like it/think its libel" thats not going to go down well. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you previously commented on this subject, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Category:Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places by state. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that these charges in Georgia, USA were dropped by the DA in 2010. Kemi Olunloyo has a history of lying about her credentials and just about everything in her life. In the end, it does not matter what you do. The good guys will do everything they can to alert people about Kemi Olunloyo and take action against any Canadian that gives her any support in any way.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.151.166 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to explain in detail why what you want to do is not what wikipedia does, but then I realised its a waste of time. Good luck with your war against the Canadians! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wait, xhamster isn't some x11 game? DMacks (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not. Well not sadly, it's entertained me when the wife is away on business. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jusrt to let you know, some of the comments you copy & pasted don't make the same sense without the links they originally had—it'd be best to copy & paste the code rather than the displayed text. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm actually sorting that now. Since all the comments were hatted and separate it was easier to paste the base text first. Get the main detail down, make it look pretty after. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an editor with little current WP experience I have no real idea if this is true or not. Help Desk assures me that it is not. But in my short time back I notice the power structure has an negative edge that it lacked 10 years ago. Is what you wrote factual? SmithBlue (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One blogger I follow calls Andy Wakefield "Mr. Fraudy-Trousers", which always makes me smile. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer 'greatest threat to herd immunity of the last 100 years' but it doesn't roll off the tongue... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion description said:

(The BLP applies *everywhere*. You need a reliable source to explicitly label someone a 'zionist' before you can do so on wikipedia as it is a contentious term. 'Supporter of Israel' would be compliant.)

Please see: Zionism.

Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel.

Therefore, I am de facto a Zionist, by definition, as is anyone who is a "supporter of Israel", which is the alternate suggestion you provided. Your alternate suggestion is actually the definition of the word. A human being wouldn't have to explicitly identify as a homo sapien sapien to be labeled as such. Hamas wouldn't have to explicitly be labeled "anti-Zionist" to be labeled as such, given that their platform is the annihilation of Israel – considering that is what modern "anti-Zionism" is. Similarly, Hamas wouldn't have to explicitly be labeled "antisemite" to be labeled as such, considering the fact they actually hate Jews – considering that's part of what antisemitism is. Inversely, anyone who is a "supporter of Israel" (the definition of Zionism) is de facto a "Zionist".

Since you blanked my page through reversion, I'd appreciate if you reverted your reversion, if you have come to understand it better.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 08:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment: Andy didn't request anything, I did. He can't possibly say what he did wrong, because he didn't. It would be nice if we could keep things simple by not going into that (that the socalled infoboxes case should have been about reverts of infoboxes, - ask Ched). For a starter you can look at the edit an arb found concerning enough to vote to ban Andy in 2013 (to my knowledge the only diff of evidence supplied in that case). To make it easier here's what others thought, including arb Gamaliel who observed well and described precisely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite, thats rather the point. He *did* do something wrong, thats why he has the restrictions in the first place. It is also a requirement that someone seeking to have restrictions lifted make the request themselves, precisely because it is expected that they will admit their mistakes and pledge not to do it in the future. Absent either of those it is not surprising some people are unable to support the proposals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is wrong: you can easily get restricted by arbcom without doing wrong, - I think I was, for example, and so was Andy. But it's exactly what I want to avoid: looking at the mistakes of the past, which includes the mistakes of the arbs then. One line in the 2013 case I wrote: "We can start today". - Infoboxes are no longer a battlefield, - most of the topics back then (Bach, Handel, Verdi, Beethoven, The Rite of Spring, Götterdämmerung ...) have an infobox now. My first barnstar was for resilience, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Andy was community sanctioned(not Arbcom) for (in part) dicking around with Infobox's on Featured Articles, I think you will find claims he has been sanctioned unreasonably given short shrift. But I am not about to re-argue past cases with you. I was just explaining that absent an admission of wrongdoing, or at the *minimum* a pledge not to continue past behaviour that led to the sanctions in the first place, it is not unreasonable to reject a request for having the sanctions lifted. Given the recent badgering he engaged in here, such a statement does not seem likely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff is from 2012. I talk about infoboxes case, 2013, and later. No more from me, I got used to 2 comments max, which would be a very reasonable way of improving all discussions on Wikipedia if only it was applied to everybody, not only me. - Did you see my Featured article on Easter Sunday? Dedicated to dear people who died, including my father and Dreadstar, - I would welcome the feeling of some resurrection ;) - Cheers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I tried to keep ARCA free from looking at the past. Your link to this discussion - I don't know what to think of it. I only wanted to give you (personally) some background. I did intentionally not link there to the 2013 questions to the arbcom candidates, because I didn't want to point with a finger to the arbitrator who thought Andy added an infobox where he only uncollapsed one, nor to his colleagues who didn't notice the mistake. It must be difficult to look at a diff ;) - On ARCA, I ended with an appeal to good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... which was heard, better late than never. Did you know that having worked on Kafka (most successful TFA so far) helped, see his The Trial: "it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader", - that is no fiction (and also true for a woman) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs seem to have understood. - Can I help you to check your premises? I'd take incivil name calling at me better than your smooth "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves."

During the last year I wrote GAs on Bach cantatas, DYK? The last one written, with Thoughtfortheday and Nikkimaria, Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194, was promoted today. I like collaboration more than anything else on this project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OID, I am not involved in the underlying discussion and don't intend to be, but Gerda pointed out that "discredited" comment and she is right. I don't know why we don't have a WP:SNARKY but we should. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a templated warning would be out of place but you currently have two reverts in the last 24 hrs on Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands. I had planned to self-revert myself and add the NPOV tag anyway FYI. WCM_email 08:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments on the Age of Avengers talk page, your thoughts would be appreciated [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Carter_(film)#RfC:_Which_figure_should_go_in_the_budget_field_in_the_infobox.3F%7Con this as well]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: "Rather odd since Bonham admitted he was present and a witness and was charged. While drumming on stairway at the same time?". The incident occurred during the band's acoustic set. You don't need a drummer on stage during the acoustic set. It was usual practice for John Bonham to leave the stage and get refreshed backstage before returning. And he wasn't charged at during the concert, he was charged the next day when the police raided the hotel they were staying in. 187.6.249.59 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true. But stating 'the band was on stage' when the entire band wasnt is not accurate. I will rework to say excepting Bonham. That section was/is badly worded in parts anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death.

Part of your comment at the Arbitration noticeboard talk page has been redacted per a request as it did not appear to be backed up with suitable evidence. This has been carried out as a clerk action and shoud not be undone without express consent from the committee. Amortias (T)(C) 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be ridiculous. His global contributions log at Meta lists all the projects he has contributed to, his edit counts, and links to his block logs on those projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death, I wrote the wrong thing when I asked a clerk to remove that bit. However, the main reason I did so is that comments like that is what we're trying to avoid, as they make it harder for someone to come back into the community (also hence the goading and baiting restriction, not saying you were doing that) when people point to years old blocks and imply that the person being unblocked is going to create disruption (your popcorn comment, for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well frankly dont link to notices and say 'discuss this' if you dont want it discussed. You want to avoid comment about OR? Dont bloody unblock him then. He managed to get blocked for disruption on projects where he had less than 500 edits. 'Years old blocks' would apply where someone doesnt have a history and pattern of behaviour over a wide range of topics and wiki-media projects. The 'well he hasnt done anything recently' logic doesnt work at unblocking discussions, topic ban lifting discussions and elsewhere, as it is considered the restrictions in place are what is causing the lack of disruption. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing it is (as we are here) is fine, talking about eating metaphorical popcorn which watching another person get rebanned isn't. The hasn't done anything recently and what's said in theit statement and in answer to questions is all there is in unblock and unban discussions. I absolutely agree it doesn't pass muster for topic ban appeals (and I've declined some for exactly that reason) but when assessing unban requests (especially long-term ones) there usually isn't much else to go on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring this article, after the recent strange moves... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is FP1 that was referenced? Wasickta (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was responding to WP:AN page, with a wikipedia's mobile app editor. It somehow added my reply, but also duplicated some sections and may have removed part of your reply. That was not my intent, and is an app bug. I am unable to undo and fix my reply. Could be undo and fix it please. Sorry, for the inconvenience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done this. I wasn't sure exactly what happened, but because you added more than 40,000 bytes to the page, I knew something wasn't right.--Atlan (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Atlan got there before me, no harm no foul no problem. Only in death does duty end (talk)

I added your comment where it was supposed to be - page should be correct now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be outing to suggest that you might be Moses? ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if I was Moses... Someone did email me once attempting to out me. Unfortunately they confused me with the carefully crafted online and completely fictitious persona I used 15 years ago for game forums. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death. Did you see the keep vote by DGG for the Fred Cray article? As you stand opposed to this WP admin, who by all accounts is one of this sites most respected (and longest time) editors, and as he, correctly, points out that WP is all about croud sourcing, not accuarcy, I was wondering what your thoughts were in disregarding WP policy as it pertains to this article and if there is a greater movement here to remove artists, in general, from WP? And if so, are you a part of it? The reason I'm asking is because if there is an effort like this ongoing, I'd need to reevaluate my working on such articles. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Moxie Marlinspike page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thank you for responding to my request to make some contributions to the biography of Martin Lorentzon. Have you received a response from the language ambassador page?

Kind regards, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinVacher (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death, the Swedish translator you referred me to hasn't been in touch. Do you have any other suggestions please? Thank you --MartinVacher (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Props. -— Isarra ༆ 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unseasonaly warm here. But thanks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in ending years of strife for myself and others. Wikipedia is now a better institution.Phmoreno (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well almost. Still flailing on AN over those ridiculous excuses for RFC's. Ah well. They are trolling now I expect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But I've made every effort to engage in talk page discussion and Elobelm hasn't tried at all - even given prompting on his talk page after his first reversion. Do you have an opinion? I really don't see how listing someone's titles and how you should address them has any relevance in the modern day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it doesnt (have any relevance). That doesnt make it not encyclopedic however. Styles of address (both current and previous) are common for BLP's where the subject is also a member of the artistocracy/lords etc. The problem with an argument based around 'I cant see why it is useful' is that there will *always* be someone who finds it useful or interesting. Regardless of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the {{nac}} template to your recent ANI close? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have said the same thing to you, Softlavender. There is zero obligation to close a discussion using that template at AN/I. It is, in fact, wrong to use that template to close an AN/I discussion. This practice is not going to catch on. In fact, it's going to have to be addressed appropriately. Doc talk 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please keep in mind the five pillars of Wikipedia, especially civility. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75, there's nothing wrong in nominating an article for deletion when it may not meet our content guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go look up what this was about. Hawkeye, Keem may or may not be well known in the streamimg/YouTube community, but his article does not demonstrate notability. Secondly please do not reinstate material removed because of the BLP without addressing the concerns or gaining consensus at say the BLP noticeboard. Controversial unreliably sourced material is subject to removal and is considered an exception to 3rr. Self-serving self-published sources about racial insults are not reliable. Thirdly I have severe doubts that picture you uploaded is under a compatible license. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Only in death. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't so much for the edit itself, but for making me laugh out loud this early on a Monday morning. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was personally surprised someone else hadnt already. I mean, they were so close! Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hatting that - if I knew where it came from I'd be inclined to replace the entire lot with diffs. I've given it my best shot at understanding whats going on, but drawing blanks - there's obviously some COI editing going on but I'm not sure if theres any other outcome than "drop it and stop editing those articles". I'll leave it to a patient admin to wade through and sort. Thanks again -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I doubt ARBCOM are going to be opening 'Welsh Politics' anytime soon. The only reason I responded to the original request at COI was a)I'm in Wales, b)I vote green. So its hard to accuse me of bias against the Greens. (I dont have any issues with who is going to be leader, all equally inept imho) But as Briahne and I both pointed out, we just dont list non-notable people like that. It causes Bloat. I didnt expect it to go on for days. I assumed Roger would get the hint, understand why we dont list every Tom Dick and 'arry, and go on his merry way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this then? pbp 13:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POINTY. Which is not the same thing. Had you just not bolded the delete in the first place, it would not have come to pass. You know perfectly well why you dont bold a vote multiple times in the same discussion, you have been here long enough so ignorance is not an excuse. You were certainly not the only one who was misbehaving there (JPL did not cover themselves in glory) but accusing Carrite of doing it for kicks when there is a long-standing and really quite sensible convention is just being petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it appears you have deleted and moved pages related to Trịnh Thị Ngọ. Kindly revert the deletion and move and set up a discussion of the proposed deletion/move with reasons and allow discussion before such significant action is taken. This action needs to be discussed as there are other perspectives to consider. For example, there has already been a discussion at ITN/Candidates about the naming of this article. MurielMary (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply