User talk:FutureTrillionaire/Archive 2

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think so. I would add Direktor to the checkuser part and put down your explanation. Sopher99 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is Ultimate from the Syrian articles, I wish to make my future contributions under this name from now on so if you ever want to ask me anything, do so on this account please

I'll be busy for a while however, I got university to focus on, but I don't mind popping in every now and then, I'm still following the Syrian situation NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I started working on this months back, I plan to start from the seizure of Tal Abyad and the regime air strike on the petrol stations in Raqqa, let me know what you think NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NightShadeAEB/Raqqa_offensive

Most of the rebels participating in this operation are jihadists. --Amedjay (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks for that info. In a sidenote, I think a "Battle of Daraa (2013)" article is due since as of last week, the rebels have taken over the southern third of Daraa called Daraa al Balad and captured barracks and checkpoints in it. A few days ago, they advanced into the city center of Daraa. Like in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour, the rebel push into the city proper is going largely unnoticed here in Wikipedia. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/2/21/syria-live-coverage-multiple-bombings-in-damascus.html

Yes ,multiple infos are reporting a rebel offensive in this region. They did already control parts of Daraa city though. --Amedjay (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1) "Discuss first" is not a reason for a revert. Please give a reason that can be considered and discussed, 2) The edit merely added a sourced fact that is relevant to readers. Humanpublic (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Angry "everything is a western conspiracy" users are messing around with the mainpage again. Mind putting in your imput? Sopher99 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you sometime review FAC articles. Would you be able to review alcohol laws of New Jersey, which is a current FAC candidate? DavidinNJ (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I added citations to the liquor license tables. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you could update these pictures again (sorry if I seem like a nag). Thanks! --Philpill691 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - No problem.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Title says it all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21641113 Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

But you turned Daraa to Green, despite rebel control of Daraa al Balaad, and rebel fighting in Daraa al Mahataa (together making up 80%-90% of the city). Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Opps. Not sure how that happened. Anyways, thanks for telling me. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dayr Hafir is a small village which hardly makes any news. After a long search, the best reliable source I could find on the village's status was in a spiegel article from January, which says Al nusra causally occupies the village.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/shift-in-balance-of-power-for-rebels-in-wartorn-syria-a-875423-3.html

Its in the second paragraph under "Islamist connections" Sopher99 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this. It also mentions they met Nusra members in Aleppo and Dier ez Zor, which are still contested. It might be better to just remove small villages from the map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey! An editor made an extremely controversial edit to the Libyan civil war article, and I reverted it and asked him to take it to the talk page in the edit summary. He reverted me again, so I repeated myself, this time on his talk page, he reverted me again, and now I can't revert him without risking a 3RR with the edit. Could you take a look at it and see if I am actually justified in reverting it, or am I just crazy? You can find the edit in question here. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping Damascus green was already kind of pushing it, considering Yarmouk, Hajar al aswad, Tadamoun, and Jobar neighborhoods are part of Damascus proper are mostly rebels controlled, as well as fighting in barzeh. Not to mention they have the most dense population, perhaps making up half of Damascus's estimated 1.5 million. But today rebels captured Damascus's stadium, and are now west of Jobar, and so occupy the very eastern section of Damascus's commercial district.

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/3/8/syria-live-coverage-opposition-leaders-cancel-trip-to-washin.html

Sopher99 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On 8 March 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Battle of Ar-Raqqah, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for helping to fix and improve Batman: Arkham City by locating referencing errors and helping to make it a Featured Article! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I'd like to thank you as well for reviewing my FAC. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey. We believe that we have addressed your concerns and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, Thank you for very much for supporting our article, and for the time you spent reviewing our article. It is greatly appreciated. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started a thread about your recent edits to Easter and Names of Easter on the Easter talk page here: Talk:Easter#A new, dubious etymology for Easter: "In_Albis" -Ben (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw my recent post on the FAC nomination page for Oblivion, but IGN is owned by J2 Global (when you look at the IGN article, or any website's Wikipedia article, the owner, aka publisher, is listed in the infobox). --JDC808 ♫ 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I interpret the "publisher" field of the template is that it is the same as the copyright holder listed at the bottom of the webpage (Copyright 1996-2013, IGN Entertainment, Inc.). I assume that the website IGN is owned and published by the company IGN Entertainment Inc.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's true and I look there too when there is not a Wikipedia page for a website. The way I was told is that the owner is the publisher. If you notice when you wikilink IGN Entertainment, it redirects you to IGN. "IGN.com" is a sub of IGN Entertainment which is owned by J2 Global, if that makes sense. It used to be owned by News Corporation, but J2 Global acquired IGN just last month. I'm now going through the God of War articles and fixing that. --JDC808 ♫ 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "publisher" means the direct institution that owns/operates the website, or the top owner. Anyways, I started a discussion at WT:VG#Publisher of IGN? to get some answers.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Video Game Barnstar
		Congrats on finally getting The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (that beast) to Featured status! It definitely deserves to be a top article. —Torchiest talkedits 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer anyway: see the edit summary. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, the only dates which should be in ISO format are those in tables where space is limited or sorting desired, and accessdates. There were several publish dates which were in ISO format, and the conversion of those was my intent. While ISO dates for publish dates are not forbidden, the guideline appears to strongly suggest against them in that role. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your idea with using the tag on Belarus, but for an article of that size, and of the reference size of it, using that tag would not be the best idea. That is mostly for, lets say, big articles with no citations or a few. The regular citation needed would have worked, since there was only 2 citation issues in the article. Now if there was 20, that is a different story. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the images. I uploaded the Akin image on the Commons with the same name as a file here, so I had to do a move request before I used it. I was able to source the other two pictures off of the site for the Akin photo. Once the move request is granted, I will upload that file. Again, thanks for the help.Casprings (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this [10]. I was about to do it myself but you beat me to it. Discussion Zeus has nothing to do with improving the article about Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Now please re-open Talk:Jill Valentine/GA2. --Niemti (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.^[1]
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.^[2]
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.)
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
6. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations

Another thing to look for is that if the article has been nominated more than once, go back to the previous reviews and make sure suggestions from the other reviews have been addressed.

If the article has any of the above problems, it may be premature to provide a detailed review, in which case you can "quickfail" the nomination in accordance with step two of the GAN guidelines, as long as you explain this clearly on the review page. They most commonly apply when the nominator is inexperienced or is not a regular editor of the article. If you "quick-fail" an article according to the above criteria, leave a short note explaining the major problems and inform the nominator.

Even if an article can be "quick-failed" according to the above criteria, reviewers could also:

1. Leave a short note explaining the major problems, but without officially closing the review until the editors at the article have had a few days to respond to your concerns. You may find that they are interested in significantly improving the article.
2. Provide a detailed review, as more specific information will help future editors improve the article to meet all of the Good article criteria, but close the review as "not listed".
3. Withdraw from the review, and let another reviewer decide how to handle it.

Emphasis added by me. So please remember to always actually/carefully read any policies/guidelines before using them (and to not ask other users for opinions, because they might be completely misguided - just always find and read them yourself), like that (source). --Niemti (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iraqi insurgents mortar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Armed insurgents in Iraq.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We need a map for damascus city , because there is battles occuring in the capital,especially that the FSA controls some neighborhoods in the capital .

Abdo45 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What about making a map for damascus showing rebel and government controlled neighborhoods Abdo45 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been busy lately. I don't really have the time to make such a map. Also, maps are often inaccurate and hard to update.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The damascus city map will be an accurate one and easy one to be done,due that we have a map showing the clashes in the first battle for the capital Abdo45 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Jowcol (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Hello-- I'm quite interested in the maps you have been making, and the resources you have been using. I have been developing maps for reported deaths in a crowdsourcing effort called SyriaTracker-- you can access the shapefiles we've been generating at https://syriatracker.crowdmap.com/reports/view/2888. (Note, we have a new release coming out for with data through March 3). If you wish to collaborate further, please send an email to syriatracker@gmail.com, and it will get to me. There may be some ways to make it easier to collaborate and update maps.

we already have the map of the battle of damascus 2012 done but it just need adjustments to represent the situation in the damascus offensive 2013 Abdo45 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page, "We've tried RfC and DRN with little outcome. The three editors who insist on adding Israel to the infobox have been trying to do this for months. Incidents similar to this one have happened before, but things usually cool down after a few days."

I find this to be really problematic. The editors involved in this dispute should be working hard to gather consensus while the article is protected, so that we don't simply return to edit warring. Not only does your comment indicate that you aren't interested in further discussion, but it shows that you are content to simply "wait out" the editors on the other side of the dispute, and that you don't take their viewpoints seriously.

In response to your report at EWN DIREKTOR accused you of stonewalling. It's not easy for an uninvolved admin to get a sense of editor's intensions in these kinds of situations, having not been a participant in them himself. But what you said makes me more inclined towards DIREKTOR's claims. I implore you to take a look at the manner in which you have been participating in this debate and to try and open yourself to what others have said, rather than simply waiting for things to "cool down."

As a result of your edit warning, I am warning you that you may be subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of ARBPIA if you continue to edit in a manner inconsistent with expected standards of behavior. As you said, this situation has been going on for months. It ends now, and will not resume after the protection expires. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The stonewalling accusations are ridiculous. The majority of editors involved in the Israel discussion agree that Israel should not be added to the infobox. However, those who advocate for the inclusion are tenacious, and don't seem to want to give up. As for the sanctions, I think it might help.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your attention is requested on my talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How come you didn't got block on reverting and I did Alhanuty (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

God of War is up for FAC again if you could voice your support again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive3 --JDC808 ♫ 04:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted them again and made a comment on the edit war on the talk page. Even though like you I do not support those kinds of changes, I proposed that, if they are still insisting on their additions, some kind of compromise solution. EkoGraf (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in dealing with this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Since SOHR has finally started distinguishing rebels from civilians I sorted the casualties article by specific sections, removed un-needed info and added a new section on the foreign jihadists that have been confirmed killed. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to what you wrote. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a user that claims that government forces has retaken the eastern Ghouta,can you revert his vandalism because i used all my revert chances for today Alhanuty (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC) the article is the damascus offensive 2013

Futuretrillionaire, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

why did you emptied the article ,the events in daraa are no so significant,they are no longer clashes,it is a campaign to capture the governorate 24.0.209.65 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't split articles unless the main article is too long. Also you didn't move the articles the right way. See WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Future. Everything that's happening is a continuation of previous operations and clashes that have been ongoing in Daraa for the last two years. EkoGraf (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking for some time that the article Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man should be broken up. Because the battle for the town itself ended a long time ago. What followed, after the rebels captured the town, has been the continuing siege of the Wadi Deif base. So I have been thinking of breaking up the article and creating something called Siege of Wadi Deif. However, I cant figure out at which point in time I should make the break so I wanted to ask you for help. Should the break point be - October 10/11, when the military made a counter-attack to recapture the town but failed, quickly followed up by the first rebel attacks on the base; October 12/13 - when the first reinforcements were being sent out to reinforce the base; October 25/26, when the military reinforcement column managed to link up with the base after 10 days of continuing fighting along the highway to reach it since October 13, leading to a stalemate phase of the siege; November 14, when the military had secured most villages along the highway south of Marrat al-Nu'man but had not managed to enter the town itself and at that point in fact had abandoned attempts to retake it? I cann't decide. EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The first rebel attack on the base would make the most sense to me. According to this Oct 24, 2012 Reuters report, "for two weeks [the rebels] have surrounded and attacked Wadi al-Deif, east of the town of Maarat al-Numan." This would mean that the rebel began the siege on the base at around Oct 10/11. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I will create the article and make the break in the comming days. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I did it Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man and Siege of Wadi Deif. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Qusayr offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual's sockpuppets are wrecking the page as we speak. Can you deal with it? I can't edit the page until Friday due to edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this removal of the death portal.

Usually if an article is eligible to be a part of a given Wikiproject, then the portal(s) corresponding to that Wikiproject should be posted in the See also (preferably) or External links section. This article is a part of the Death WikiProject, so therefore the Death portal should be posted in the article.

If there are large numbers of portals (the French do this, and this practice should be done correspondingly on the English Wikipedia) then I can do a "portalbar" that puts them in a bar format. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a thread on WP:AN/I regarding an issue you may have been involved in. Pass a Method talk 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, There is of course no issue at the moment, but I thought I would mention that given that you are fixing many references, and other editors are making other changes at the same time, you may inadvertently hit the 3RR line without even seeing their edits. So it may be a good idea just to keep a count of that. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to be careful.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

By the way, one requirement for a GA nomination (requirement 5) is that no major debate. By the time someone gets to do the review the current debate may have ended, so hopefully it will be Ok and the debate will end soon. And thanks for all the effort in bringing the refs to a common format. History2007 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've readded the Boston Marathon bombing to Domestic terrorism in the United States. Thanks for not adding names, and especially for not outright saying they did it, but don't you think calling this a domestic terrorist attack implies guilt on an American, despite nobody being convicted? And how do we differentiate terrorism from "mere" murder without knowing the motive (or at least having it laid out by prosecutors)? If you can see the BLP problems here, I'd appreciate it if you reverted yourself. Not telling you to. Just telling you why you might want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. --JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping. --JDC808 ♫ 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See my response in regards to the canvassing issue. --JDC808 ♫ 17:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the comment, I think you should take a look at, and perhaps keep an eye on, the Chronology article. It has a lot of details already, and if you want to expand the Newton item that may be the place to do it. In fact once one digs through the Newton paper it is pretty interesting, but I have a feeling most readers will not understand it. But the Chron article is in pretty good shape now, and has details of many of the other approaches if you want to look at those. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Stalemate is a bit arbitrary term. A better term would be War of Attrition. Can you please change it to that. Sopher99 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99: Stalemate seems to be what many sources are calling this conflict. While it's true that the conflict has been called a stalemate before April 2013, Assad military advances were rare between October and April. I'm concerned that calling it a "War of Attrition" might be sensationalizing. Are there any other options? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a stalemate because both sides a making gains. War of Attrition is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. We even used it for the Aleppo page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%9313)#War_of_attrition

Sources also call it a war of Attrition, like this one. [11] Sopher99 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

War of Attrition is the best option. I would change it myself, but I don't want to waste my 1 revert. Sopher99 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In this edit you removed the unbalanced close-quote. But it appears that the preceding phrase is directly from the cited source. Could you double-check and see if the fix should instead be to insert the missing open-quote? DMacks (talk)

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I've now added the quotation marks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing! DMacks (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The ref number 374, i.e. Ehrman|2011|p=252 does not show the quote, and Ehrman needs to be the first in the list of 3. Please take a look. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I think I fixed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and delay the FAC request on Jesus for a little while. I have good reasons for that. The GA went through because both reviewers just happened to have brains. A very different story on FAC where every imbecile with a modem will type something. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: Lol. Don't worry. I don't think this article is ready for FAC yet. There's a lot of ref and prose issues to fix. This might take a few weeks. I agree that the FAC review will definitely not be easy. To make the review less frustrating, I think we should request all the reviewers to read the FAQ before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that all those who comment can even read... Or are sober. I have seen people type after 12 beers. I actually have several FAQs to update in the next 3 weeks or so, for the historicity, historical, Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ etc. I don't think you have seen the edit wars (someone crossed the 11RR line on Josephus) etc. Looking through the archives will be eye opening. And a few users were banned and indeffed in that process, say here and here, among others. So the last topic ban and sockpupetting was mild compared to the previous ones. I will guarantee that people will argue about Josephus etc. as part of any FAC. So the other FAQs need to be there as backup. And if you are to go for it you need to read and know the pages on Historicity, Josephus and Tacitus. Should not attempt it without knowing the topic in detail. If you start it and are less than knowledgeable about the topic it will backfire for sure and set the GA itself in jeopardy. And the requests for changes on GA were mild. On FAC due to the highly emotional nature of this topic there will be so many conflicting suggestions that page quality may actually go down. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: I see. I understand that we need to be very well-prepared if we choose to take the article to FAC. Do you think a successful FAC is even possible? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

These crowd sourced processes are inherently haphazard and non-deterministic. Depending on who happens to look at it etc. it could take one of many, many directions. The only certain part is the very, very long discussions with many users, some intelligent, many brainless. And again remember that many people are emotionally opposed to the idea and will go out of their way (even subconsciously) to create obstacles. This is not an article about a boring bridge somewhere. It is an emotionally charged topic. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I created a new article here List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. Check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: "not sure why a citation about parables is used here" it is about words and works, and the concept is that they relate. I have generally checked over 90% of those references carefully and you can double check them always, but I am pretty sure they are by and large accurate. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@History2007: I was confused why the Pentecost source, the page of which cited is about parables (no mention of miracles), is used to support a statement about Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings, when there is already another source (Twelftree 95) that actually discusses Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings. I wasn't concerned by the accuracy. I just don't see why the Pentecost source was necessary for that statement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually use two or three sources in case in the future users do not have access to one of them, and they can always check via one of the others - spare tire concept. And the fact that the book is called "words and works" shows the significance of the term. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Huon and myself checked the Christ page now, and nominated it for GA as well. So both pages should be in good shape. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to change the edit message, just go to edit the page and you will see a small link on the top right. But only an admin can save it. So you need to contact your favorite admin to do it for you. And should be easy given that the RFC link is clear. I fixed the link to the RFC in the archive. Most questions like this are now linked in the FAQ in case people wonder about these. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually he changed it already. But I suggested adding a gray or beige background. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the "later Perean" etc. as I said the details are all in the articles that link too with Main. And the same was the case with the 33 vs 34 date for Newton - it is in the edit history. It is explained in more detail in the chron article. I think if you read those other articles, and put them on your watch list that will help. I will go away (away, away) next Monday, so if you need anything, please ask before then. But all the details are in the sub-articles. So it will be good if you watch the Historicity of Jesus page and Josephus on Jesus, Chronology etc. because they go to support this article. And they are very, very stable now. Also if you add your name here you will see discussions on those over the next months from June onwards. Anyway, if you read through the page and need anything please ask by then. Also note that I did a GAN on Christ, Huon improved it but is pending. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As you saw this just happened on the "April 23" typo issue. The longer chron article mentioned St. George's day, and could just answer it. So those articles cab be consulted for answers. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed you are not on this list. From June 2013 there is a new "in focus... " format, book reviews, Christianity-DYK, etc. that refer to some articles of interest. Please just take a look at the June issue (should be released soon) and see. June focuses on this article which is a key supporting issue in some of the discussions we had, and would be great if you could watch it. To subscribe, you just need to add your name to the list here. They are also offering a 3 month money back guarantee deal next week. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've subscribed. I'll keep my eye on the articles focused.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great. They form two groups in fact:

• Historicity: [12] [13] and [14]

• Activities: [15], [16] [17] and [18]

These form the base that supports the main article. There are also a couple of incidental/peripheral articles such as this which were however still missing key facts like this after 7 years and were yapping about other things. But they are mostly fixed now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm about to put the {{GOCEinuse}} back on the page, but I see you've been working on the Existence section, and I've re-raiseed the chronology issue. If you like, for the rest of the day I'll edit only from the Archaeology section on, so if you want to continue on those higher up, you can, and we won't have edit conflicts. (I won't be doing much today, actually, but will do some now.) Cheers. --Stfg (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg: Don't worry about it. I did some reorganization of the existence section to make that section flow better. I'm done now, so you don't have to worry about edit conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(←) I've completed a first pass now, and removed the inuse banner. Thanks for working so nicely with me and for being so prompt with replies, suggestions, checks, and so on. It has been very enjoyable. I'm going to declare the GOCE request complete now, but will keep the article on my watchlist and will probably do a second quick pass in a few days to see if I missed anything. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Your contributions were invaluable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

report his edit warring Alhanuty (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I really hope that they will block him for a while. He needs to learn to stop this nonsense.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just started it, will need much help - see portal:Syrian civil war.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Sure, I'll help out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Could use your help, please check out my talk page under the section SOHR and "Facebook" and this guy's page User talk:HCPUNXKID. He is trying to remove SOHR as a source at Damascus offensive (2013). At first his complaint was because its Facebook. I explained to him that it was agreed by consensus two years ago to use it because its the official English version page of SOHR and they were the only ones who were posting and their info was being used by reliable media. He did not want to acknowledge that. For sake of compromise I than replaced the Facebook SOHR source with the main SOHR site, which has nothing to do with Facebook. He than removed that as well without any explanation, and his personal attacks against me I really don't understand. He said that if Russia Today or Press TV were using it I wouldn't regard SOHR as reliable because I'm a hypocrit who regards those other news sites as unreliable. I explained to him that in my personal opinion those news sites should also be used for sake of neutrality but that the decision of the Wikipedia community is they are not reliable so I am sticking with that. He than said I was contradicting myself. Like I said, I really don't understand him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation is so astonishing, so SOHR (a partisan organization runned by...only one person living in the UK!!!) is a reliable source, but Press TV or Russia Today aint reliable. Are you serious? Im only trying to enforce Wikipedia policies, wich says crystal-clear that social media like Facebook or Twitter are NOT a reliable source, unless are used to illustrate something related to the owner of the FB page, wich is clearly not the case. I could accept it (not approve it, but accept it) if the source is a SOHR web, but not Facebook! Wich would be next, use Twitter as a source, perhaps?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

@HCPUNXKID: If you're so adamant about this, take it to WP:RSN--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID has now taken up the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He is trying to exclude SOHR as a source from Wikipedia. A few of us are trying to argue with him but he is too conservative and has started accusing and insulting. EkoGraf (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Pass a Method has been attacking me to. He deletes referenced content and then he put me forward for blocking without a reason. He put me forward for blocking without even explaining why he wanted me blocking. He does cause a lot of disruption.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: Should we report him to ANI? He has made a number of personal attacks and has done other disruptive activities.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Is it possible to add the following in Jesus article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongkim (talk • contribs)

@Dongkim: The table, if improved can provide a good comparison of the events. However, I don't think this belongs in the main Jesus article per WP:summary style. You can add it to the resurrection article if you want. That being said, the table needs some improvements. For example, why isn't Acts in a 5th column.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, following our discussion with administrator Jake Wartenberg here, i'm now about to submit a request to Arbcom to create a 1RR Syrian civil war arbitration tool. I started the request template at my namespace [19], please check that the request is worded well enough, and it seems to me i'm missing what has to be filed in "case affected" and "clauses" fields. I shall later submit it. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I'm concerned that the others might not be happy about this proposal. I've started a discussion at the Syrian civil war talk page to see if anyone opposes this idea.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: Yes, sure - that's the idea to make it an official procedure with others' involvement.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Future, I do not think we should include the 1,000 claimed casualties by the Israeli minister for multiple reasons. First, the claim came from an Israeli government source, the Israeli defense minister, and considering the hostile nature between Israel and Syria I don't think he can be counted as a reliable source. Second, SOHR (which has been proven reliable in the past) has put out a figure which is for the most part consistent with the number of Hezbollah deaths documented by an Israeli non-government independent research group and with a claim that Hezbollah itself has stated on how many of their fighters have died. So we should stick to what has been verified/documented by reliable or semi-reliable and independent sources, and to what for now seems consistent. Third, up until now we have not included figures on potential wounded in the conflict and have included only figures on the number of confirmed or semi-confirmed killed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in opening an WP:RFC/USER on the conduct of User:Baboon43 due to long running issues of incivility and edit warring. Back in March, you contacted the user in an attempt to resolve a dispute. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification, I would like to ask you to consider endorsing the RFC/U; you may view it at my sandbox. If you agree, you have my consent to make changes to my sandbox as needed so that this RFC/U can be filed properly. It is my hope that this community effort will encourage the user to reevaluate his approach. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC/U has finally been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. I'm just letting you know since you did certify the dispute and might want to watch how it progresses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Sibling in Christ. I appreciate your Christian witness on your Home Page. It certainly coordinates well with the very polite and sensitive nature of your Talk postings. Having been a professor most of my professional life, I greet you also as an acadème as well. Thank you for your careful and multitudinous edits to the "Jesus" article. You have made very significant contributions indeed.

While I attempted to explain my rationale about Bibleref2 on the article's Talk page, I neglected to mention the fact that when a user clicks on any Bibleref2 reference, they have instant access to many translations, including display of parallel translations. The default is NIV, but ASV is an available choice. (You most likely already know that, but it is an important advantage IMHO.)

Since I am out of the country on vacation, I have edits to the "Jesus" article on my to-do list. I have very limited access to the Internet, and would like to make best use of these leisure days. Therefore, I will proceed with the laborious replacements of the Bible citations, hoping that I do not offend you, for that is the farthest thing from my intent.

My pledge to you is this: if you object to the replacements I make to the template calls (and I do ask that you share with me any objections to my changes), I will go back and undo them since I am proceeding without your consent. This is because time is somewhat of the essence with me for the reasons I outlined above.

Out of personal interest, I am wondering what is your major and intended vocation. You write so well and certainly have a knack for research. Your additions to the Islamic belief section show an understanding and depth that frankly are amazing. Your brother in Him, Afaprof01 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Afaprof01: Okay. You can go ahead if you want. I'm trying to get this article to FAC hopefully within a month, and I'm concerned that someone at FAC might bring up copyright issues concerning the bible quotations. I guess let's just hope that won't happen.

As for my academic studies, I'm a chemistry major, thinking about going to medical school after college. However, I'm interested in a wide variety of topics, including religion. And yes, I find it fascinating how other religious groups view Jesus. Thanks for asking :)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved the rest of the discussion to Talk:Jesus. Discussions about major changes to the article belongs there, so other editors can voice their opinion as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The user Pass a Method continues to cause me trouble for no reason too and deletes all the content. I noticed that he has been doing the same with you. What has be been doing with you --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: I actually haven't encountered him in a while. If he keeps removing the contents you add, just undo his edits. Then, start a discussion at the article talk page. If that doesn't help, take the issue to WP:DRN.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You might wanna check it out a bit carefully. Hyphen placement varies. I don't know the details, but country affects it for instance. Mr Stephen is rather expert at it, and may be right. --Stfg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a talk page discussion to get this sorted out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(With this edit). I guess I don't understand why threads without recent responses should be kept on the main talkpage. As it stands now, of the two posts extant on the main page, one thread is almost 7 months old. Of the threads that were archived in the Bot's last pass (which archived a large chunk of posts dating from 2009-2011), if 5 threads had been kept the three threads with the most recent posts were dated December 2012, November 2012 and August 2012...so no one had responded to those threads for 7 months, 8 months and almost a year. For people who come to Wikipedia with outdated browsers or older computers or accessing WP from mobile devices, long articles or talkpages can pose accessibility issues so I always think it's better not to keep everything on the main page. Your mileage may vary and that's cool, just wanted you to know why it had been set up the way it was. Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand. Having a huge talk page is not ideal, but sometimes I encounter old, but unreplied threads (usually left an IP) that contain some useful suggestions. I changed the minimum threads from 2 to 5. Hopefully, that won't cause a huge difference in terms of bytes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my original archiving edit gave the minimum threads left as 5, but the Bot changed it to 2 (it probably looks at threads-age/'days old' first and it then changed the code accordingly). Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The nowiki was there before, i removed it accidentally.

• Best regards,
• Wschlitz 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Wschlitz: No, you added it. Look at your changes carefully. Please don't use VisualEditor. It's very buggy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that. Alright, back to old editor I suppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Wschlitz (talk • contribs)

Hey, would you care to do a source review for God of War II? --JDC808 ♫ 06:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded. --JDC808 ♫ 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect Syrian civil war page and other related pages. The issue was previously discussed and recommended by an administrator for Arbcom solution on the issue here. As an editor involved in previous discussion on this topic, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to send you a note to congratulate you for the work you have put into this so far, and to encourage you regarding the FAC. If there's anything I can do to help with it please let me know. Keep well and have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to review this article! I'll try to address your concerns quickly.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion with respect to a request for clarification and amendment, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to clean up some links on this article? Thanks SirAlexOreo (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@SirAlexOreo: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "clean up some links". Are there issues with the wikilinks. Are there dead links that needs to be fixed? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was to describe the link or reference, there's one reference for "English" that's categorised on "Also used for official purposes" on the info-box, and I want it to be neat and described like the other references. SirAlexOreo (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to cut down the 2013 protests in Turkey article to a more reasonable size, however one of the editors raised an issue with me removing the info. I could really use a neutral eye to look over the article and propose some areas where it could be reduced in size. It is current at around 210k bytes (after my removals were readded to the article). Thanks in advance!! Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Jeancey (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear user, as a participant of former discussions on amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles, i would like to notify you on motion-resulting discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. Meanwhile, and for a period of 30 days starting July 21, 1RR sanction shall continue to be applied with any notifications and sanctions to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	For your GARs that help improve all those elements articles. Your work is greatly appreciated! Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, if you would just GAR Alkali metal, you might just spur me to start working on it again... Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

re: This Edit to the Jesus article, 13:04, 28 July 2013.
with edit summary: "The Baptism of Jesus" is sometimes capitalized. If you're gonna decapitalized it, do it for the entire article! You made the capitalization of the word inconsistent.

Thanks for your assistance finding other places needing change. When I was in the baptism and temptation section, I could not see the entire article. By the way, it is generally better to comment about edits, not editors, in the edit summary.
Have a nice day. —Telpardec  TALK  04:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As you were involved in the nomination of Arkham City, I am just making you aware of this current nomination if yo get a chance to comment. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look in a few days. Right now I'm a little busy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's correct according to WP:Lead, I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt you from those who are now going to demand references for these claims. Editor2020 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Editor2020: I was reluctant to do it, but it was requested at the FAC page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)