User talk:Brustopher/Archive:NothingToSeeInThisOneFolks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

On 4 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christiana Abiodun Emanuel, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Aladura religious leader Christiana Abiodun claimed that angels had visited her during a trance and taken her to heaven? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christiana Abiodun Emanuel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Newfound River. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As the Lawsuit thread seems to be about the same thing and seems to have it covered, is there any reason not to put the {{Resolved}} back? I really don't want to be partly responsible for the waste of multiple editors' time reading that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and restore. Apologies for the increased talk page clog. Bosstopher (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking Collapse would be even better. Any opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Appreciate the welcome and thanks for the link to wiki policies. I am familiar with some of them but will have a read through. Before you told me about the four tilda's I was entering the time manually :O Vordrak (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I did the best I could, but the references have defeated me. How should I note that for the drive? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wikified the Gambling in Hong Kong but that article really needs more meat. I can tell the meat is out there, but the RSs just aren't available. I think the COI problem is solved, but what tag should I use to say it needs more information? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky:I'm not really sure. Maybe "references still need translation" in brackets? You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ands ee if you can get a translation from there. For expansion the usual tag is WP:STUB but this seems longer than a stub so I dunno. I think its long enough to give a brief overview on the topic. Bosstopher (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yes (band). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kyle Jenkins. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
24		Homeyra (talk)						Add sources
4		Belgian Cup (Rugby Union) (talk)						Add sources
190		Yusuf al-Qaradawi (talk)						Add sources
455		Islamic terrorism (talk)						Add sources
95		Mu`tazila (talk)						Add sources
882		Gattaca (talk)						Add sources
7		Stellingwarfs dialect (talk)						Cleanup
6		Achterhooks dialect (talk)						Cleanup
69		Violet Blue (talk)						Cleanup
19		Kilchberg, Zürich (talk)						Expand
14		Predistribution (talk)						Expand
1,528		Labour Party (UK) (talk)						Expand
9		Student RESPECT (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
25		Rock music in Iran (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
49		Massoud Rajavi (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
334		Butch and femme (talk)						Merge
4,437		Bitcoin (talk)						Merge
75		Islamic economics (talk)						Merge
4		2008–09 Jordan League (talk)						Wikify
110		Anthony Watts (blogger) (talk)						Wikify
3		National Union of Students Wales (talk)						Wikify
6		Conservative Received Pronunciation (talk)						Orphan
7		Online Abuse Prevention Initiative (talk)						Orphan
4		Abdullah Bosnevi (talk)						Orphan
18		Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (Romania) (talk)						Stub
8		Al-Ahli SC (Amman) (talk)						Stub
10		Abdul-Karim Ha'eri Yazdi (talk)						Stub
8		Mirza Mohammed Hassan Husseini Shirazi (talk)						Stub
4		Philip Barbour High School (talk)						Stub
300		Blue waffle (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for going off on one about that. I'm not feeling very well today and am cranky! Cls14 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox comedian. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for what will evidently be a dumb question, but what does this refer to? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe Bosstopher's comment refers to this closing statement and an unwise comment by an as yet unnamed admin on IRC. Probably(?) not something worth worrying about. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unwise" would be getting angry and calling someone a fucker (or some equivalent). Getting angry and talking about burning an editor in acid is the sign of a sick mind that shouldn't be let anywhere near admin tools/sharp objects.Bosstopher (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Another GGer and I put together a transcript of the HuffPostLive interview you linked to, with timecodes for the questions and answers so you can verify the content: http://pastebin.com/Famvp4G0.

I hope this might be helpful in some way.

Also, I'm a noob so I hope this is the right way to contact you. --Mracidglee (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, oh greatest of noobs. Thanks for allowing all of us looking at stuff on the talk page to be a bit more lazier when discussing stuff.Bosstopher (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I only want to make things easier. Regarding your comment about the other interview, does the interest come from the adversarial interaction? They have an interesting discussion about harassment and online anonymity, but barely talk about GG. For that matter, Brennan and Wu are sort of GG-tangential and late to the party. Brennan's site 8chan only hosts GG discussions, and only played host to GG discussion after 4chan started removing posts. Wu doesn't work for games media and never attracted attention from GG until she started criticizing it (some trivial Original Research: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GamerGate%20to%3Aspacekatgal%20since%3A2014-08-13%20until%3A2014-09-04%20include%3Aretweets&src=typd&vertical=default&f=tweets). Mracidglee (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The interest comes from Wu and Brennan being "big names" who've been associated with the controversy in the press a lot. Compared to the trio of the second interview, it's a lot easier to integrate their views into the article. Also apologies for being such an incredibly lazy bum, I promise I'll get round to looking at the transcripts tomorrow. Bosstopher (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You wrote: "The suggested version George has posted below seems best (with assault changed to sexual assualt)." Can you please include a quote what George wrote? It's unclear. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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:

the same user basically created this Giant Spacekat (company) just now from scratch, which I think fairly also falls under the topic ban. Now, I do note that we already had Giant Spacekat that redirected to Wu's article, and I really don't think (regardless of GG issues) that the company is more notable than Wu is, so I would suggest that if you want to take responsibility for that edit (I see no issue with that), that you might want to tag that new page, as well as consider doing the redirect on a purely notability basis. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Abbott. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack, as I doubt if Mr. 2601 has ever beheaded anyone. However, it is tiresome that he/she demands the right to edit anonymously while refusing to reveal his/her identity. If you are going to turn up and be deliberately rude on Jimbo's talk page - which Mr. 2601 has done before - at least have the guts to show your face.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless an unnecessary and inflammatory comparison. Bosstopher (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1982 Lebanon War. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not continue accusing specific editors of sexual harassment; these kinds of accusations violate the BLP policy and cross into outing territory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've redacted less of your comment, as requested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the courage in plainly stating your opinion so promptly. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I can send you a pdf from the print version of:

• Leaman, Oliver, ed. "Bosnevi, Abdullah (992–1054) / 1584–1644)," The Biographical Encyclopaedia of Islamic Philosophy (2006), p. 87.

if that will fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#The Biographical Encyclopaedia of Islamic Philosophy. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blazing Saddles. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I nominated this article for AFD (2nd nomination) but I screwed up the formatting. Can you help? Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com Hey there. I used template:afd2 and copy pasted everything into the paramaters. It should be working now. Also it's probably worth noting that it's not actually a second nomination, as previous deletions were all speedy. Best of luck. Bosstopher (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
490		Insha'Allah (talk)						Add sources
760		University College London (talk)						Add sources
16		Timeline of the Iranian Revolution (talk)						Add sources
627		Block chain (database) (talk)						Add sources
176		E-commerce payment system (talk)						Add sources
4		University of Warwick Students' Union (talk)						Add sources
6		Nialaya Jewelry (talk)						Cleanup
53		English-language vowel changes before historic /r/ (talk)						Cleanup
54		MathType (talk)						Cleanup
11		University of London Boat Club (talk)						Expand
29		Education in London (talk)						Expand
2,024		NoSQL (talk)						Expand
44		Bal des débutantes (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
23		Freedom Movement of Iran (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
34		Gender segregation and Muslims (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
157		London Metropolitan University (talk)						Merge
36		Kolkata Police Force (talk)						Merge
97		Soft butch (talk)						Merge
2,033		Iran hostage crisis (talk)						Wikify
13		Newham Sixth Form College (talk)						Wikify
0		2007–08 Jordan League (talk)						Wikify
4		Alan Collins (academic) (talk)						Orphan
7		Tony Gallippi (talk)						Orphan
2		Ali Ghodousi (talk)						Orphan
2		1954 Jordan League (talk)						Stub
0		1947 Jordan League (talk)						Stub
11		Commonwealth Hall (talk)						Stub
15		Nutford House, London (talk)						Stub
1		1956 Jordan League (talk)						Stub
8		Institute of Musical Research (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:UNFD. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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 The University of Law page, your edit caused a URL 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) 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quint Studer. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher mentioned you on the talk page in "#Contested_deletion|Contested deletion]]". No idea what this concerns or how to find out. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:Someone created an attack article on a certain recently blocked wikipedia editor/ethical journalist. For the sake of "NPOV" they decided to also put a few jabs at you in there. Brustopher (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that had been in the article for ages, I just moved it when I cleared out the junk discussion of the Gamergate hashtag that was crow-barred into the article. Thanks for your contribution. Koncorde (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh. I couldn't tell if you'd gotten one of these, but just saw that you've given at least one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Aw man! I had a nine month streak going on here. Nine glorious months of nobody noticing that I'd never been alerted of GG general or discretionary sanctions. Now my sanction immunity is over. Woe is me! Brustopher (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like you're going to do something to get sanctioned. Woe! Going to take you to ANIABCDE now. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I had stored up all these brilliant and informative MS paint diagrams with red lines on them which I was planning to use. Too late for me to get away with that now.Brustopher (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SEMA. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. My edit summary was cut off (after the comma, it said that I wasn't sure whether that part was significant enough to the article as a whole to be worth including in the lead), but it might be worth a mention. My other issue, though, which I'm running into as I consider how to word it, is that the article (and its sources) don't actually say that most of the email campaigns were about ethics concerns (not even claimed as such by the people behind them.) They were mostly about objecting to the content of a few specific articles. --Aquillion (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I haven't looked at most of the sources recently and am mostly basing this off of my very murky memories of the past nine months, but weren't the "Gamers are Dead" articles objected to as unethical ("injecting politics into videogames" and all that)? See the five step plan in Dewey's article on Gamergate. Brustopher (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My reading of that particular source is that it says they targeted those organizations because they were offended by what they were saying rather than due to a lack of ethics. But either way, leads have to reflect the article, and the article doesn't currently say that Gamergate's email campaign was primarily driven by ethical concerns so much as an objection to what those sources were saying, even in the words of the people running it. (My recollection from the time was that the main rallying cry was that those sources had offended and insulted them, although there were a bunch of people piling on based on their own personal peeves -- Gawker had been a target for much longer than that for a variety of reasons that go beyond just Gamergate.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm probably going to have to reread those sources again. I'm coming increasingly to the conclusion that Gamergate is proof of their being no sense of coherency in the universe.Brustopher (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demoscene. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL, the two women involved have placed their names on the petition page and given public interviews, including a live one, on CBC. What "privacy?" Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I can't find any press mentions of Toulson when I googled her name. I'd be totally up for restoring it if you can link some. If there has been no coverage, I think it's prudent to keep her name out of the article. Firstly because 0 secondary source coverage. Secondly because there could be a negative backlash against her. Brustopher (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Providence (religious movement). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On 1 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Wesley began writing Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament because he was too ill to preach? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify personally that while I am frustrated it is not with you nor the sources available, just with how the article comes across. We both share a deep love for Wikipedia, so seeing something covered in that manner and vigorously defended hits home for me, especially in light of some of the articles I've had to fight singlehandedly to keep over the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: Apologies if anything I said came across overly rude, it seems I misunderstood what you said. But I'd say that while the current article isn't perfect, it isn't dreadful either. The big issue here is that Gamergate is a very vague ill defined thing. Anyone who wants to can be Gamergate. I could right now if I wanted, create a twitter account, use the Gamergate hashtag, and start tweeting about how I'm a Gamergate support who loves Kotaku and thinks Anita Sarkeesian is the greatest thinker of our generation. Since gamergate has no leaders or defined structure, I would technically be a "Gamergate supporter." So because there is no one person who speaks for Gamergate, we instead have to write about it based on what makes the biggest splashes in press coverage, and give due weight to the amount of coverage different issues receive. Since there is no one person who can say what Gamergate is actually about, all we can do is describe what the reliable sources (and a few big names like Baldwin) think its about. It may hit home hard for you, but I genuinely can't see much room under current policy for huge changes to the article. Brustopher (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Brustopher. I think you might be the wikipedian that I have interacted the most with having been thanked, autopatrolled, commented on by you. You also mentioned my at WO. Therefore I hope it's not inappropriate to ask you how many edits you think I should do before participating at RfA. I asked Wjbscribe and he told me I could keep at it, but, seeing as how you are my wikipedia patron I'd like to ask you how many edits are reasonable? I'll abide by whatever you recommend. I've been something of a slow starter and only got started editing in earnest these last two weeks (Still only racking up a pittance 14 edits) but my speed is accelerating! Also I'd like to add that if you ever do an RfA I'd be happy to vote for you Aparslet (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aparslet. Apologies if I've been scrutinising you too much. It was just that I kept on seeing your name in odd places (WO, my thank log for a GG edit, the RfA), and it made me think that something odd might be going on. But it seems like it's mostly a case of you being a keen (but mostly silent) wikiwatcher. As for how many edits are appropriate, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be absolutely useless and say I'm not sure. There's a lot of people who are fine with people with very few edits voting, while others tend to suspect sock puppetry or canvassing is afoot (see this discussion). I think a big part of the issue was that you decided to place you first RfA !vote on what seems to have been one of the most controversial RfAs of all time. If it had been on a more mundane RfA, I doubt anyone would have cared as much. It could still have raised some suspicion, because sockpuppetry is major problem, but you never know. What you should probably think about is if you understand wikipedia's policies and culture well enough to guess at whether or not someone would make a good admin. To be honest I'm not really sure I have the greatest understanding of either and I still !vote, so !vote whenever you feel you understand the appropriate amount. Also I'm very flattered that you think I'd make a good admin, but I strongly suspect I'd be pretty dreadful as an admin, and would completely crash and burn in any RfA. I've made a lot of dodgy and dumb edits in the past few months, and its probably best that I never get given the ability to make dodgy and dumb blocks and deletions. In the end you need to follow your heart/dreams (and sadly wikipedia cultural norms) and !vote whenever you think it's a good thing to do. Sorry if my advice was too rambly and non-advisory.Brustopher (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn's words seem a tad clearer than just "greater", alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Those aren't Corbyn's words you've put in quotation marks. They're the old Article IV of the Labour party, about which the article quotes Corbyn as saying “I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one. But we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways.” He only entertains the idea of restoring the original Article IV, and the only sector he explicitly advocates public control over is the railways. Brustopher (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Blame Reuters for the confusing attribution in its coverage -- but I am unsure the "greater" adjective is backed by sources either. Nor does Corbyn appear to be a Blairite <g>. Collect (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I went for "greater" because the railways are not currently privatised. Either way User:Philip Cross seems to have figured out a solution. So I guess problem solved for the time being? Brustopher (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - I was concerned that no source used "greater" (than what?) while Corbyn is unabashedly an Old Labour person per Guardian etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military Frontier. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, subject preference is not part of the WP:AT or WP:BLP policies. Can you explain why the article title should be moved because the subject wants it to be moved? Thank you. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sovereign Sentinel: Subject preference comes in through MOS:IDENTITY: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Brustopher (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Whether it is clear which name is most used is another question though… sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 00:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. In this edit, 22June, you added the NPOV tag because you allegedly were discussing "this" (... ? ....) with others. What was or is "this"? Is that discussion still going (or hanging)? --Corriebertus (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Corriebertus. "This" refers to Talk:Bitcoin#RfC:_Retail_use_of_bitcoin_in_the_lede. I'm waiting for the RfC to close before doing anything else. Brustopher (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of kings of Persia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
408		Insha'Allah (talk)						Add sources
16		Timeline of the Iranian Revolution (talk)						Add sources
39		Heythrop College, University of London (talk)						Add sources
739		University College London (talk)						Add sources
594		Interstellar travel (talk)						Add sources
40		National Front (Iran) (talk)						Add sources
149		Aberystwyth University (talk)						Cleanup
33		Warburg Institute (talk)						Cleanup
174		Middlesex University (talk)						Cleanup
19		Political thought and legacy of Ruhollah Khomeini (talk)						Expand
679		American Pit Bull Terrier (talk)						Expand
992		Antisemitism (talk)						Expand
40		Islamic Principlism in Iran (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3		Hull University Union (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
25		Iranian Cultural Revolution (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
152		Criticism of Wikipedia (talk)						Merge
20		Qt Extended (talk)						Merge
269		Pickup artist (talk)						Merge
4		London Universities and Colleges Athletics (talk)						Wikify
58		English-language vowel changes before historic /r/ (talk)						Wikify
11		Newham Sixth Form College (talk)						Wikify
9		Tony Gallippi (talk)						Orphan
7		Andrea Scholer (talk)						Orphan
1		Ahmad Khonsari (talk)						Orphan
7		William Angus Dickson (talk)						Stub
30		Gholam Ali Oveisi (talk)						Stub
9		Abdul-Karim Ha'eri Yazdi (talk)						Stub
9		Nutford House, London (talk)						Stub
709		Block chain (database) (talk)						Stub
7		Commonwealth Hall (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your disgusting attack on me in the edit summary is in violation of WP:EDITSUMMARY which states "Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries". They were the most prominent unsourced figures. Corbyn, Cooper and Burnham have no uncited individual supporters and Cooper, Corbyn and Burnham only have one uncited politician supporter between them, excluding MEPs. AusLondonder (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Am I missing something here? Half the people listed in this article seem to be unsourced. Also I definitely didn't mean it as a "disgusting attack." I didn't think what you were doing was right, but it's not like I hate you or have any strong negative feelings (or even weak negative feelings at that) about you whatsoever. I don't see why what I wrote crossed the line into "disgusting." Brustopher (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for over-reacting. I don't agree that half the people are unsourced. All individual endorsements are now sourced. All politicians, except MEPs and one Corbyn supporter are now sourced. The MEPs can be sourced as a group from www.labour.org.uk/leadership AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Oh so I was missing something all along. Didn't realise there was a group source for MEPs. Awfully sorry for any offense caused. Brustopher (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi I re-edited Ahmed el-Tayeb with an article from Al-Monitor supporting his view that he will not condemn ISIS as apostates which is not allowed under Ash'ari creed: that faith does not diminish based on actions hence one cannot be declared an apostate unless they deny God or Mohammed. I also added his criticism of the practice (called takfirism) which is used by ISIS (who follow the Athari creed).Patapsco913 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) @Patapsco913: Thanks, that's much better. The source you originally added didn't explicitly state it was el-Tayeb refusing to condemn, which is why I reverted. What you've added now seems to work though. Brustopher (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Source? Blythwood (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blythwood: Here you go! Brustopher (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher rather than deleting the edit why have you not found a correct reference instead? regards - Galloglass 09:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Galloglass: Cos I'm lazy, and I have no interest in adding these sorts of minor denied sex scandals to articles in the first place.Brustopher (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have been active enough to make a number of removals, that hardly seems lazy. When a public figure, especially an elected public figure is mentioned several thousand times in connection with one news item, surely it requires at the very least a mention, which is all the original editor did. Regards - Galloglass 12:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Several thousand" seems a tad bit hyperbolic. Note that Wikipedia is not compulsory: I do not have to add information about sex scandals into articles if I do not wish to. By removing information that was at the time only sourced to the daily mail I was acting within policy. Brustopher (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miss Cleo. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Susya. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher, I wish to extend a personal, albeit qualified, thank you for your comments at WP:AE; which I hope comes across in the spirit in which it is intended. While I do not agree with the totality of the proposal, I genuinely appreciate the intent to find a workable resolution; as I also appreciated the intent to find resolution to some recent discussions on the Gamergate Controversy Talk page. Thank you. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ryk72! Seems like the proposal has tanked completely though. Hopefully Dennis Brown's will work out, and everything will be all right. Brustopher (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher, I wanted to follow up on this briefly. Firstly to apologise for not having responded on the WP:AE] page itself; but also to say that the appreciation expressed above was genuine. My comments at WP:AE were w.r.t the effect, not the intent of the proposed measures. That intent, from my perspective, was an honest, earnest & good faith effort to find a resolution; for which I thank you. I apologise if my comments there were heavy handed. I was also hoping to address problems that I perceive in the topic space.

On a, hopefully, more productive note, I was intrigued by your suggestion elsewhere that we look at putting something together based on scholarly or academic sources. I think this is an excellent proposal; even if only to serve as an adjunct to the current content. (I'm not sure that there's sufficient academic sources yet for an article to be based on only those).

I also have a couple of thoughts that I'm working on which might improve some aspects of the Talk page discussions, which I would like to run past you if possible. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ryk72. I've not really looked too far into the academic sources so far. So far I've skimmed through this one. It's mostly an account by two DiGRA members of the accusations GGers flung at them, so most of it is unusable from an independent reliable source perspective (key word:independent). What are the thoughts you're working one? Brustopher (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A little time short at the moment, so will need to be brief. Initially two things - 1. I think we'd be better with an answer, from independent, disinterested, experienced editors on the WP:FRINGE question; so would like to raise that at WP:FTN. To do so, I'd be interested in having someone else to workshop the question with, to ensure neutral phrasing (and the perception thereof). I think it would clear up a lot of the repetitious discussions to have an answer on this. 2. I think we'd be better having some of the discussions formally closed, rather than petering out. Again, on the basis that it might clear up some of the repetitious discussions. We would need closers who would not only be, but be seen to be, undeniably neutral. And for such a contentious area, it might be to big an ask. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72:Can I ask what the fringe question is in this context? Is it the argument Auerbach made on BLPN that the sort of claims he was making can't really be compared to the sort of examples given on the WP:FRINGE page? As for your second point, I don't think it can be done. Firstly, finding undeniably neutral uninvolved editors to close these things will be impossible. Mostly because a lot of editors don't seem to want to touch this topic with a 12 mile long barge pole, but also because it's near impossible for a person to be completely neutral about anything. Also the number of people willing to close discussions in general is sparse, as can be seen by the permanent backlog at WP:ANRFC. In an ideal world, this proposal would probably be very helpful, but I just can't see it working.Brustopher (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher, Apologies for the delayed response; just coming back after a couple of weeks away. The FRINGE question is essentially - Does WP:FRINGE apply to documenting the various POV on the Gamergate controversy & Gamergate movement?. I saw a number of discussions where WP:FRINGE was raised as a point of objection to inclusion of attributed opinions; and I'm not certain that this is the type of thing to which WP:FRINGE is intended to apply - it's not a subject where there is scientific or academic agreement; and I see the GGC article as akin to the Flat Earth article, where the contrasting opinions should be included.
If WP:FRINGE does not apply, then repeated reference to it serves to disrupt discussion of improvements to the article. If WP:FRINGE does apply, then "I'll sit in the corner wearing a funny hat". Either way, I believe it would improve Talk page discussion to have a clearer understanding of the applicability.
I take your point on finding neutral, uninvolved editors; even more so on finding neutral, uninvolved editors who are also seen as such. I also would not wish to burden editors who are keen to stay clear of the topic. I do still feel that we would be better having some of the discussions reach a definite conclusion, but will need to think more on how that might be accomplished. And finally, thanks for the pointer to WP:ANRFC; if this is not an "Admin only" task, then I'll see what I can do - time permitting. Thanks again for your time taken in reading this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European colonization of the Americas. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job on that article. Just looking through and it looks like it could benefit from Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing to collapse those Beller cites. For example, Clan Mackay, although that one is unique since we had to put the authors first name in the footnote as well since there were so many with the same surname. — Strongjam (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Thanks, that actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for setting up the refs on the page to, I'll revert back to the parenthetical referencing version. Brustopher (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it nice when consensus only takes two people? It's a bit jarring considering what page I started my WP editing career at. — Strongjam (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Can relate. I had this period in October where the only things I edited were GG related. Then I started editing other articles again and got really confused when all my edits weren't reverted in under a minute. Brustopher (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Charles Morgan (army officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nordstrand, Charles I and Robert Bennet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I'm here to warn you that you're not violating 1RR! Or, just to elaborate on what exactly it means. You're allowed to make a million reverts, as long as you make them all at the same time in the same continuous uninterrupted stream of edits. Edits only count as seperate reverts if something happens between them. So you really don't need to worry about being taken to AE or the edit warring noticeboard or whatever for those two edits next to each other. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Woo! Thanks for ending what were a rather stressful few minutes. Brustopher (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Any Time, Any Place. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your move of the article. We use "murder" in an article title about a death if the death is ruled by an official investigation to have been an intentional homicide, regardless of whether the person or persons suspected (if any) have been identified or convicted. The medical finding is what matters, not the legal result. I assume you wouldn't dream of moving "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" to "Death of John F. Kennedy"? Under the logic of this move, you'd have to. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Brustopher (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic neopaganism. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

On 8 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sir Charles Morgan (army officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that besieged in the city of Stade, the troops of Sir Charles Morgan survived by eating cats and dogs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sir Charles Morgan (army officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, are u a Muslim? Are you a woman? --Aduclehomo (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aduclehomo: Why all the personal questions all of a sudden? Brustopher (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Basically when I clicked on your userpage, I've found some information. Anyway, are you them? --Aduclehomo (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aduclehomo: I'm a guy, but I don't want to answer too many personal questions. Kindly stop asking.Brustopher (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What personal? You label something on your userpage and then try to avoid to say stuff. I'm not islamophobic or racist at all, but now it is clear why you attack pages and remove contents from various articles. Stop doing this. Thanks.--Aduclehomo (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aduclehomo: You seem to have misunderstood. The stuff on my userpage means I'm a member of Wikiprojects which improve articles on feminism and Islam. They don't mean I am a woman and a muslim. They don't describe me but instead the Wikiprojects I work on. I in no way was trying to imply that you are islamophobic and racist. Also how does this make is clear why I "attack pages and remove contents?" Brustopher (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
11		June 5, 1963 demonstrations in Iran (talk)						Add sources
83		Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (talk)						Add sources
24		Cryonics Institute (talk)						Add sources
1,158		Francisco Franco (talk)						Add sources
30		The Sergeants affair (talk)						Add sources
162		Giant Bomb (talk)						Add sources
20		Newham College of Further Education (talk)						Cleanup
116		University of East London (talk)						Cleanup
19		Kensington and Chelsea College (talk)						Cleanup
415		2015 Moscow Victory Day Parade (talk)						Expand
86		History of the Islamic Republic of Iran (talk)						Expand
660		Wikimedia Foundation (talk)						Expand
15		ANX (Hong Kong company) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
49		Gender segregation and Muslims (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
23		Freedom Movement of Iran (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
125		London Metropolitan University (talk)						Merge
1,289		Fantasy (talk)						Merge
84		Islamic economics (talk)						Merge
311		Economy of North Korea (talk)						Wikify
27		Polynesian narrative (talk)						Wikify
10		Camden New Journal (talk)						Wikify
3		Ali Al-Kourani (talk)						Orphan
4		Satoshi Citadel Industries (talk)						Orphan
12		ITDunya.com (talk)						Orphan
9		Institute of Musical Research (talk)						Stub
71		Cat Smith (talk)						Stub
23		John Rentoul (talk)						Stub
22		Grahame Morris (talk)						Stub
7		Institute of Modern Languages Research (talk)						Stub
11		Lucy Anderson (politician) (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. About فرید اصلانی‎‎, which you tagged for deletion under criterion A10: I've redirect it to the article it duplicated it Farid Aslani. This is a good practice when the title is in a language pertinent to the subject of the article. In this case, it's the subject's name in his own native language. This makes it easier for people to find information about topics discussed in native sources, while providing the content in English. See WP:ENGLISH: "Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged." —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Thanks. I guess that makes more sense than just deleting it. Brustopher (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing some cleanup in various articles that I stumble upon. When I find articles that have multiple issues I tend to break up my edits into several smaller ones since this is easier. Is this the correct way to go about things? I tried looking through the guides but couldn't find any information on whether wikipedians prefer one big or several small edits. Do you have any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparslet (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aparslet: As long as you're not doing something like this to artificially inflate edit count you should be fine either way. Lots of small edits are useful if you're making a lot of varied changes and want to explain in the edit summaries the rationale for each change. Editing an article section by section, and thereby making a lot of small changes means your editing screen will be less cluttered and easier to navigate. But there are also situations where making one huge edit is useful. Outside of the sort of dodgy dealings linked above, it's usually just a matter of a taste. Brustopher (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift answer. I'm not at present interested in editing the gamergate article (though I watch it religiously for the lulz). It just struck me that I don't know what the "etiquette" is for these things. I've been doing many small edits that probably could have been made as a single big one but it's just plain easier to take split the edit into multiple small parts. The only thing requiring an "edit count" that I plan to participate in is the forthcoming arbcom elections. Aparslet (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WGN-TV. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While I do understand that I could probably be seen to technically have added copy righted material, I assume you can also see that I just reverted your deletion adding back someone else's contribution and then found a citation that was fairly close in wording. It seams to me a bit harsh to accuse me of copyright violation in such a circumstance but I do see the need to flag it. I have made an attempt to reword it “in my own words” wile still retaining the original meaning and will add that back with the same citation. As to the cited source not being a reliable source I would like to dispute that as this source has been used as a cited source in several other articles. I have also found additional citations that I believe also back this up. I am hopeful that you will find this satisfactory.Unconventional2 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Unconventional2: Some parts of what you added were word for word what the source said. Also I still doubt that the source is reliable, as it is run not by a specialist in disabilities, but by a mechanic. Thank you for rephrasing the section and adding new sources. It's much better now. Brustopher (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Dinklage. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vani Hari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starbuck. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metapolitefsi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Vani Hari shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Just posting this mainly as a reminder to slow down with reverts and focus on talk page discussion when it's clear your proposed edits aren't sticking. I sometimes miss how many reverts I have in a 24 hour period, so this is just a courtesy reminder. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Thanks for the thought, I guess? As I explained on the talk page however, I don't think revert Andy Dingley was particularly Gung-ho. Brustopher (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heroes: Original Soundtrack. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
2,159		United Kingdom general election, 2015 (talk)						Add sources
24		MySociety (talk)						Add sources
130		Mu`tazila (talk)						Add sources
3,796		4chan (talk)						Add sources
189		Glossary of Islam (talk)						Add sources
57		History of Islamic economics (talk)						Add sources
710		Swatting (talk)						Cleanup
64		National Governors Association (talk)						Cleanup
37		Islamic theological jurisprudence (talk)						Cleanup
41		Muslim hygienical jurisprudence (talk)						Expand
4		Organisation of the Scottish Labour Party (talk)						Expand
159		Scottish Labour Party (talk)						Expand
509		Twelver (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
36		Rached Ghannouchi (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
625		Hyper-threading (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
151		Political positions of David Cameron (talk)						Merge
11		Commanding what is just (talk)						Merge
36		Sawm of Ramadan (talk)						Merge
258		Ibn Taymiyyah (talk)						Wikify
53		Special advisers (UK government) (talk)						Wikify
201		United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal (talk)						Wikify
1		Faramarz Soleimani (talk)						Orphan
1		South Staffordshire Junior League (talk)						Orphan
1		Kavoos Hasanli (talk)						Orphan
18		Qadariyah (talk)						Stub
16		J.S. Morgan & Co. (talk)						Stub
13		Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom (talk)						Stub
75		Lilian Greenwood (talk)						Stub
14		Novara Media (talk)						Stub
10		Bata Chowk metro station (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rudolf Hess. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the RFC at IQ and Global Inequality, but your closure seems to have not resolved the dispute over whether the summary of the book's argument should continue to be removed. Could you please comment in this discussion, and clarify whether you think the continued removal of this material goes against the RFC outcome? 43.228.158.70 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Cameron. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I double-checked and the proposed text regarding funding appears to be correct. The VentureWire source dated from 2009 says the company raised $50 million, then sources from 2010 say an additional $25 million was raised. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: My issue is with what's written in the FM sources dated to 2010: "California-based Zeltiq has raised $25 million in Series D funding with the help of lead investor Aisling Capital. Since being formed in 2005, Zeltiq has raised approximately $50 million.". It seems to imply that the 25 million is included in the 50 million. However, I don't have access to the VentureWire sources, if they explicitly state that it was 50 million before 2010 followed by 25 million in 2010 then I'll be willing to restore it. Brustopher (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I understood exactly where you were coming from. The 2010 source was ambiguous about whether it was $50 million before or after the additional $25. The 2009 Venturewire source you can't see does confirm it was already $50 million, as the source was published before the series D $25 million round and cites a total of $50 million in funding. It contains the following text:

As part of its strategy, Zeltiq plans to pursue an unspecified Series D fund-raising next year, Nye said. To date, Zeltiq has raised about $50 million in total, bringing on Venrock as an investor in the company's Series C round.

Of course, if you don't trust that the source says what I say it says, there's nothing to do but leave it be. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:No, that seems good. Will restore. Thanks for clarifying. Brustopher (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:War of 1812. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that banned editor was engaging with another Wikipedia editor, providing her multiple high-resolution (same day!) photos of a building that she wanted, to illustrate a Wikipedia biography of the building's designer. We'd better make sure he's punished good and strong, and make sure that his photos of that building never show up in Wikipedia, right? Banned is banned, after all. - Mister 2601:42:C100:9D83:7D40:2B45:47E9:79B3 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling you've misinterpreted what I wrote (or I've misinterpreted what you've written) ... Brustopher (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There he goes again -- banned user improving Wikipedia per the request of a long-term respected editor (Mary Mark Ockerbloom), contrary to the wishes of Smallbones. Who is right? Who is wrong? Oh, dear. - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:8C93:BF9F:96C4:2653 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is more a question of who's duped who. Has Smallbones duped you, an ardent anti-Wikipedian, into improving Wikipedia articles for free, or have you duped Smallbones, an ardent Wikipedian into reducing the quality of Wikipedia articles? Is it both? Either way the world's gone completely mad. Brustopher (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That very well may be! Smallbones lives in the same general vicinity as me, too. I think it's equally plausible that I'd invite him out for a beer and nachos sometime, or he assassinates me one day at the train station. Who knows?! (P.S. I'm not anti-Wikipedian, per se. I'm more in the anti-liar, anti-idiot camp. It's unfortunate that many Wikipedians fall distinctly into those categories, but certainly not all of them. And how do you know I made that improvement today for "free"? How do you know that it's not just a cover-story, to help mask my upcoming undisclosed paid article about the company building the new residence next-door to Parkway Place? Or who knows if the future article about Bozzuto Group will actually be written by an unsuspecting volunteer, who is now cast with suspicion of paid editing, merely because I suggested it here? With the sanctity of anonymous editing on Wikipedia, one could orchestrate all sorts of double-reverse-fakes which hide the perpetrator's ulterior motives. So, really, it's impossible for me to "lose" in the Wikipedia game, as long as I keep all of the liars and idiots guessing. You know what I mean?) - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:6456:1A00:C438:D070 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Psst... you're enabling again. - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:6456:1A00:C438:D070 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this photo helps mask a paid editing commission about the next-door company. Also there's still a way for you to "lose" in this situation. Someone like Smallbones or me (i.e. someone who clearly beyond all doubt isn't you) just has to write an article on the Bozzuto group first. That way no unsuspecting volunteers will end up caught in the wikidrama, and you (I assume) wouldn't get paid for writing the article. Brustopher (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

--Kyohyi (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher, I noticed that you're working on a rewrite for the GGC lead section, and thought that (if you are not already aware of it) the essay WP:CREATELEAD might be useful in your endeavours. In suggesting this, I am not attempting to sway the balance in any way; I have not read the whole of the essay, only noticed that it seemed well received on the author's Talk page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks for the link. The "rule of thumb" bit seems like a good rule to stick to. Brustopher (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: You're welcome. I've had a wee read through the now, and I agree on the "rule of thumb" but. I also like the section above it on the "5W"s; as much as a checklist for final review ("Have we answered the right questions for the reader?") as for anything else. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economic history. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher ,

The Wikipedia Asian Month will begin in less than an hours, and once again, thank you for signing up! Let's help the world know more about Asia! Below are a few reminders for you:

1. Please check out the rules here. Some rules have been adjusted—the most important being that on the English Wikipedia, stubs may be expanded with some limitations.
2. Do take the time to read the Q&A if you have any questions, or ask on the talk page.
3. The list of participants has been alphabetized so you can more easily find your name and report your contributions.
4. There is a template that you can use on your user page. {{Template:User Asian Month‎}}

Enjoy the Wikipedia Asian Month :) --AddisWang (talk)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brustopher, I'd like to draw your attention to one of the special rules in force for the WP:ARBAE2 case, namely that no allegations, whether supported or unsupported by diffs, are permissible against non-parties. Also, since I don't want you to waste your time, I'm letting you know that I have no interest in relitigating old issues which have already been dealt with during the WP:ARBCIV case and, so, all evidence relating to those will not be taken into consideration. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Well that's a pity. My evidence was meant to ultimately be a response to the Eric rejects civility as a pillar stuff in Aquilion's section, by looking at whether Eric's claims of unfair enforcement matched his actual experiences.Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forte Tenors. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
117		That Metal Show (talk)						Add sources
27		Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) (talk)						Add sources
717		Comparison of American and British English (talk)						Add sources
156		Hank Hill (talk)						Add sources
141		Shia Islam in Pakistan (talk)						Add sources
14		Media Standards Trust (talk)						Add sources
135		Soundwave (Transformers) (talk)						Cleanup
184		Abul A'la Maududi (talk)						Cleanup
470		Legality of bitcoin by country (talk)						Cleanup
88		Peace Companies (talk)						Expand
2,424		Refugees of the Syrian Civil War (talk)						Expand
63		Event of Mubahala (talk)						Expand
176		Julien Blanc (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
211		Social Democratic Party (UK) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
111		Muslim supporters of Israel (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
150		Women's rights in Iran (talk)						Merge
46		Wikipedia in culture (talk)						Merge
22		Golden number (time) (talk)						Merge
2,581		Pink (singer) (talk)						Wikify
63		Hukbalahap Rebellion (talk)						Wikify
67		Ebi (talk)						Wikify
2		Views on Ahmadiyya (talk)						Orphan
10		Green Economy in Kazakhstan (talk)						Orphan
3		Cornwall College Students' Union (talk)						Orphan
24		Jack Davis (actor) (talk)						Stub
9		Mary Grace Baloyo (talk)						Stub
18		Momentum (organisation) (talk)						Stub
5		Job Getcha (talk)						Stub
20		Michael Farmer, Baron Farmer (talk)						Stub
3		Dwayne Gylywoychuk (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fiona Graham. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Could I encourage you to pose your questions to the newly-declared arbcom candidates as well? I thought they were interesting, and it would be good to have an across-the-board comparison of the responses. Andreas JN466 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Brustopher (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you were talking about Gamergate and the Lightbreather case. Why not name them and ask whether the candidates would have made different decisions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Funnily enough a substantial proportion of candidates who figure out what the second question is about don't realise what the first question is about. For the first question I'm reluctant to mention the usernames, because when a certain dragon enthusiast kept on doing it he found himself being topic banned from referring to offsite activity. Also the reddit guy I'm referring to (and a second guy who did the exact same thing) both have stopped editing, so there's no point dragging their names back up. For the second question, when I mentioned the usernames on wiki I ended up getting oversighted by an arb and warned to never do it again (scroll up to 28. "note"). Don't want to risk the dangers of getting blocked for being a malicious outer. Brustopher (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, Brustopher. I don't want to get you in trouble although it doesn't seem like a violation to refer to evidence presented in a closed Arb case. I can see making connections between WP editors and someone on reddit might be dicey though. I guess I belong to a small circle of people who know who you are referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alienation (EP). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - hope you don't mind me raising question here but seems best way to avoid risk of stumbling into an edit wars. Re the Grant Shapps edit you reverted, I cited the two sources which I think tell the story most clearly, and the Iain Dale link reports on the direction question and answer with Grant Shapps giving Shapps's version of events. Given Iain Dale has often been cited in news sources which Wikipedia counts as reputable talking about the Conservative Party, I think that source fits the exception in WP:SPS for "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Would therefore just citing that one source address the concern you raised? Markpackuk (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Markpackuk:See WP:BLPSPS, Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. This doubly applies when YOU are the one of the sources being added. (Well not really but it's still a pretty dodgy way to add negative information into someone's BLP). Brustopher (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward VIII. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Denial of the Holodomor, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Do not engage in mass removal of referenced content on controversial articles per WP:BOLD. Note that BOLD changes must be done with caution, particularly as the article is under WP:ARBEE sanctions. Being on a bot generated RfC list does not automatically entitle you to redact an article when the subject matter is quite evidently unknown to you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for the very helpful template. I now realise that I merely meant to make some test edits and will use my sandbox accordingly. But in all seriousness I cannot see how what I did is wrong. I removed unsourced negative claims about BLPs (and there is no scenario, eastern europe or not) where this is a bad thing. The other things I removed were completely original research and based only on primary sources. This is once again a clear cut case of something being wrong. I know that I am young and naive in the ways of Eastern Europe, but I seriously have no clue how anything I did can be construed even remotely as BOLD let alone disruptive. Brustopher (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Self revert before you get caught up in an edit war. If you don't know the subject matter, read the talk page and the current RfC (the RfC bot being the only reason you involved yourself in the article). I am assuming good faith on your behalf... but you're correct, you don't know the subject matter. If you are interested in familiarising yourself with the topic, by all means do some serious reading up on the issues (and by that, I mean serious academics pertaining to the Holodomor in general). I'm simply trying to alert (but not alarm) you as to making assumptions over BLPVIO and who is relevant and who is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: As a talk page lurker, I'd point out to you that Brustopher is an experienced editor who is very well acquainted with BP:BLP and its discontents. He is, of course, correct in writing that WP:BLP and WP:RS apply everywhere. So, you will recall, does WP:CIVILITY. It is not customary on Wikipedia to require an advanced degree in the topic area in order to edit, or to demand credentials, and when you write that "you’re correct, you don’t know the subject matter,” a bystander might wonder whether you yourself are entirely in compliance with our scarred fifth pillar. One of Brustopher’s edits did remove an assertion about a BLP which did not, to my trained but non-specialist eye, appear to be supported; rather than asserting that he doesn’t know the field, wouldn’t it be better for everyone and the encyclopedia to add the pertinent reference? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Well I've been studying Soviet history (mostly gulags) for the past 2 months at university but I've admittedly been doing a truly half-assed job at it, and the Holodomor's not really come up. I wouldn't say I'm a complete fool though. I made two kinds of removal. I removed statements which are unsourced and about living people. If these statements are true, and I just know nothing, then I'm sure people who know better than me will have no problem finding sources to support them. The second sort of thing I removed is original research about specific Holodomor deniers. For instance, Mario Sousa, a man so seemingly irrelevant that nothing of interest comes up when you google him other than this Wikipedia article, and the primary source it cites. Of course, yet again, this could just be me knowing nothing and Sousa could be a man of great notoriety in academic circles. Although if this is the case, it should once again be very easy for editors who know better than me to provide reliable secondary sources about him. Same for John Puntis who seems equally irrelevant. If this is a case of me being an ignorant fool, please prove it. It's delightfully humbling to find out that there's so much more to learn out there.Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I think the pertinent point here is that the reader is bound to want to know the source for these critical assertions, and the absence of a source makes the article less authoritative than in ought to be. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In which case, I invite both you, MarkBernstein, and Brustopher to actually participate in the RfC. Also, please define 'experienced'. Yeomen ≠ experienced. I'm not, however, going to try to maintain a dialogue here. This is something for the article's talk page, not a user talk page. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've copied a hatted version to the talk page. Brustopher (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Center for Security Policy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Rooney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The removal of the purposed deletion tag on the Zoe Quinn article I view as being removed too fast. You removed it in under 3 minutes after I added it. I was editing the same page not realizing this, and you removed it again, explaining the edit with the overly-newbie term "m8!". This is completely idiotic, and possibly shows a strong bias in support of Zoe. It is also incredibly unprofessional.

I can not figure out how to add the article to the AFD list so I will have someone else do that for me. --Chocolatechip65 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elagabalus. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Watchdog.org. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glyphosate. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I think you broke some references in your latest edits...would you mind going back and cleaning up? Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly: Sorry about that, didn't notice. I meant to do something slightly different to what I actually did. Thankfully it seems that Anomiebot has saved the day. I guess I should bring it all to the talk page instead... Brustopher (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for adding in the Bain reference. Hope your uni thesis is going well or complete. I had been meaning to ask you for help with an article in a topic area you seem to be familiar with. I want to use this in the article Islamic view of the Christian Bible, but I don't want to slant the article negatively. Given your experience in the topic area, do you feel the academia.edu paper linked would be a good external representation of mainstream versions of the viewpoint the article describes? Also, will you take a look at it? -Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (For the sake of transparency, here is my history with the article (permalink))

@Discuss-Dubious: Just responding to note that I've seen this. Will respond in greater detail when I have time to (probably tommorow or day after that latest). Brustopher (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: K so, first I'd like to clarify that I'm not really that much of an expert on Islam or anything. I know basic stuff about theology, and my usual involvement in the topic area on Wikipedia is copyediting stuff written by people with a poor grasp of English. Regarding the study, does the author have recognised expertise in this area and is the study published anywhere? If not would perhaps lean against it. What would you like to change about the Islamic view of the Christian Bible article as it currently stands? Brustopher (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be great to have the article, either to complement the existing sections, or a separate section or so that explains how they argue, what they argue about or something, but from an external angle, which puts claims to speakers or something. Not necessarily in a negative sense. Is that okay to do? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: I can't see any reason why this would be a bad idea. The only potential problem is that the entire article ends up representing this source, but given that it's currently mostly based on primary sources this would still probably be an improvement. But as I said earlier, keep in mind that I'm no expert in Islam, so I'm not sure how much what I'm saying is worth here. Brustopher (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know this is late, but I just want you to know I was paying attention.
>"not really... an expert on Islam" -Loud and clear. >"potential problem" - will take note of that, thought of it too. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:My Old Kentucky Home. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al Jazeera America. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dr. Luke. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Re this, see the talk page. There are other issues with those maps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I clicked "revert" on the wrong page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sunni Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothy Leary. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's BRD, not BRRD. But I won't revert you because that would be BRRRD. I thought the simplified version of the page was better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @Liz: Thanks for clarifying but you gave absolutely no explanation for why you were making this change. I restored because of this and because the previous version had more sources.Brustopher (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Matrix. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Beatrice of York. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abby Tomlinson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I only noticed that three days ago. Glad you're watching over that article. Another wiki careerist starved for attention? You know that feeling? When you're playing around with descriptions like idiot airhead, gender warrior and attention-seeking illiterate and end up not using them as it would likely get you banned and unable to help some of WP's BLP victims in the future? Yeah, that. Happy Sunday.:) Draco^E 17:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James F. Amos. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catfish and the Bottlemen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Natalie Portman. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to the ODNB on my side of the Atlantic, so I can't verify that source myself. But I have been reading Charles Spencer's Killers of the King, and he makes it seem like the exact identity of the killers was never determined. In any event, the Dutch never charged or prosecuted anyone, making it legally unsolved (the main criterion for inclusion on that list), regardless of what determinations historians might have made.

We probably need stronger sourcing before we include this in the article, though. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Sorry for the delayed response. The line from ODNB is "On 2 May 1649 a group of royalists led by Walter Whitford, son of Bishop Walter Whitford of Brechin, entered Dorislaus's inn at De Swaen and stabbed the envoy to death. The assassins were never brought to justice." Maybe you've misread never being convicted for their identities never being determined? Brustopher (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As I should have said more clearly, over at list of unsolved deaths we include all notable cases where the identity of the killer is subject to reasonable doubt and no one was ever charged, or they were but the conviction was overturned on appeal or otherwise reverse. That is the criteria we used for inclusion on that list—that they are legally unsolved.

Now, there are exceptions to that where the historical record is pretty clear ... Harry Kendall Thaw was acquitted after being found restored to sanity, but he never denied the act (hard to do when you shoot someone in the back of the head in the middle of a crowded restaurant, really), just his own sanity at the time.

So, I went back in Spencer's book, and online, to see what he had to say based on his research. He concurs that Walter Whitford's son John, who was living in exile nearby and certainly had a strong personal reason to avenge his father's treatment by the Roundheads by killing one of the regicides, led the gang of about 11 that surprised Dorislaus while he was having dinner with company, overpowered his guards, and axed and stabbed him to death. Whitford certainly struck one of the blows, but he did not act alone ... and I've never read any identification, much less speculation, as to who else might have been involved. This page, sourced itself to the ODNB, is clear on the lack of any judicial response on the Dutch's part "bec

Hi, I want to inform you recently, I edited the List of Prime Ministers of Iran and corrected its mistakes. I hope you find it useful. Best regards. Shfarshid (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You recently received a source on WP:RX about this matter. Could you also send me a copy? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Sure thing, send me an email and I'll attach the PDF in the response. Brustopher (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thought i'd let you know that i've put Tony Blair back into the list (where he belongs, if for balance alone) and cited a source for his inclusion, to support the actual photo showing him... Ta, Guy.shrimpton (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy.shrimpton: Hey, you seem to have misread the source. Can't really blame you due to the misleading headline. The article refers to a "photo of Tony Blair at a St. John's dinner," not at a Bullingdon club dinner. The picture is brought up because it was of similar embarassment to him (due to his visible drunkeness) as Cameron's Bullingdon photo. The article at no point states that Blair was a member of the Bullingdon. Brustopher (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Newton Boat Race logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jezza Corbyn. Since you had some involvement with the Jezza Corbyn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)