Hope you dont mind me replying here as its going a bit off topic from the thread on Scotty's talk. I suspect your council idea would have worked well if it had been implemented early and gained acceptance. But as you say, it would be controversial. With RfA, theres arguably already consensus that its broken, and its increasingly apparent theres a kind of downward spiral. Less & less active admins concentrates power on the existing ones, and they become more and more overworked. This generates extra ill feeling against admins among the opposes, making it harder and harder for RfAs to succeed. So Im expecting in the next few months, or couple of years at the most, well presented proposals for radical change will succeed.
But your idea seems to apply to decision making outside of RfA. AFAIK theres far less of a consensus that the status quo there is untenable. Interestingly though, I seem to recall there were attempts to set up a council roughly similar to your idea back in 2009. But there was such a backlash from the community that the arbitrator most in favour of the change chose to resign. (It was Kirill if Im remembering correctly. ) So Id guess your idea is a non starter, unless perhaps you time your proposal after a shortcoming with the existing system becomes apparent with a controversial incident, and someone starts a popular thread complaining about that problem at ANI or Village pump. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 07:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 19:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time. I am afraid it is very close to failing (only one chance left, I fear), but your assistance was very much appreciated. 88.88.167.157 ( talk) 11:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
How strongly are you allowed to favour things as a volunteer? It is quite clear from your comment that you have no problem with the inclusion of the home advantage claim, but do you actually favour it? Please don't take this the wrong way and feel free to not answer if you are not supposed to. I only ask since it seems it may well be the last inclusion/exclusion issue so if we were to achieve an agreement on this I think we would be very close to a compromise. 88.88.167.157 ( talk) 13:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that the version currently in the article will not get consensus. On the other hand the version currently proposed seems close to consensus, as the it seems much of the recent discussion concerns wording. Is it possible to change the interim version in the article (preferably to the current proposal, alternatively the current proposal minus home advantage, or the last "stable" version), while making it clear it is not imposed as the finished version. Bear in mind that the version currently in the article was added because Andromedean thought it had to be there in order to be properly discussed. The version in the article has never been stable without an active discussion. The most stable version after the section was first created was the previous one (excluding your edit), which survived a few days without discussion before Sport and Politics deleted it.
I also think that it is possible that the current situation puts the parties to the dispute at different power levels, because it gives one side a potential incentive to stall. I (can't speak for Sport and Politics) feel that it is problematic that a for me completely unacceptable version is in the article, while the arguments are limited to details on wording, or cutting just one bit from an otherwise acceptable version. I would have invoked
WP:BOLD and made the change myself, except that I think that could potentially hurt the consensus building. Please consider this in the right spirit, it is not an attempt to bypass the consensus building. The version in the article has never been supported by consensus, and we have moved past it in the active discussion. It was never going to be the final outcome, and it would really help if I didn't have to have that version in the back of my mind during this discussion. (Perhaps I just shouldn't think about it, but it is, in fact, the version the readers currently see.) Thank you for considering this.
88.88.167.157 (
talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Fall Events from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
Please note, I have no problem whatsoever with your re-opening the discussion about blocking, but wanted to point out why I closed it - "Did April 1st come early (or late)?" It was a legitimate proposal, even though it was in policy, and would have been more appropriate in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but was not worth moving there because there did not appear to be a ghost of a chance of being accepted. I hope that helps. As an uninvolved editor (non-admin) I simply read through the responses and could see where it was headed - no where. Could I suggest that it be moved to proposals? Thanks. Apteva ( talk) 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I thought that was the right place for the Jessica Biel dispute, thanks for pointing me where to go. I've never had a talk turn to this so I never knew where to start to resolve it. The 'olive branch' you posted on the talk page, are you saying we cant discuss it at all or what? Lady Lotus ( talk) 04:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments at ANI and on my talk. ChemTerm ( talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just looking at your recent comments regarding the conduct of USER:HiLo48. I'm working on an RFC/U, but before I launch that, I want to document his behaviour over the past year or so. If you would like to contribute, especially to show inappropriate interaction with a variety of editors, User:Skyring/RFCU_evidence is where I am gathering material. -- Pete ( talk) 05:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate. I'm kinda backed up at present - do you think you could take a look at the threads at DRN that haven't been looked at yet? Some have been sitting there for a day or so... :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I had hoped this would not happen, but the accusations he made before the DRN resurfaced now. I think accusations of bias, having agendas and similar require community attention, because if they are acceptable I have no place in the community. Thought you ought to know, but as I found he behaved much better in the DRN you may not have noticed anything. I am sorry I had to take this step, as I truly believed a consensus on wording would have been achievable. However, I can't discuss with someone who sees disagreement as evidence of bias for the other side. It seems to me he felt this way during the whole DRN, even if he kept it to himself.
88.88.166.230 (
talk) 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I took my wife out to dinner last night...Chinese Buffet...lots of shrimp. I got a fortune cookie. It said "You have a natural grace and great consideration of others." I think it was meant for YOU. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Amadscientist, I was up way too late yesterday and was a little bit cranky. I was already upset at Writ Keeper's RfA because there is a new trend where editors ask a bunch of questions just to ask them. People like JC37 ask 5 at one time and it becomes overwhelming to a candidate. Questions should only be asked when more information is needed from the candidate. I also feel like people are looking for more and more obscure reasons to oppose and I was under the impression that you were doing the same. Ryan Vesey 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I never meant "weird" in a disrespectful way; I apologize for using it, now that I know you took it that way. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Along the lines of what Gigs said above, please consider redacting that comment, as though it is ironic in context and could provide useful insight as to the way Writ Keeper reacts to personal attacks in practice, such has no place on an RfA. I know that probably wasn't what you were after, but that is how it comes across and the RfA process is contentious enough without that sort of thing. Thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to put a "#" in front of your comment at 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) on Writ's RFA. I didn't want to fix it myself as I was not totally sure of your intent. PumpkinSky talk 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Retuning your plate. Cookies were fantastic. Sorry, I broke the glass one. Whenever another editor upsets me, I break something in RL...kind of cathartic. I'm surrounded by broken shards of dinnerware. ``` Buster Seven Talk 07:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
.......OK.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I appeal to you to consider the dispute at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Australian_Christian_Lobby Hasteur 17:44, 23 October 2012 has said "I intend to mark this as "Failed" 24 hours from now". The two contesting editors are unprepared to defend their (non-P&G conforming) editing. My concern is they will interpret "failed" as support for ther position.
On the Article TP Editor Grotekennis puts a lot of emphasis for the need for 'scientific research'. What Jim Wallace (of ACL) has said is backed by 'scientific research' - scientific research quoted within a (Wiki-P&G conforming) citation. (also removed)
If people can remove P&G conforming material replace it with an opinions such as, "It should be noted . . " and then refuse to remove, or discuss it, this badly undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
FYC Sam56mas ( talk) 22:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narrative inquiry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 05:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Could you lend a hand at this? RobertRosen claims that the personal details are controversial and refuses to let me add content to her article. When confronted, he veers off to my past edit history, that I was a sock puppeteer and that I was involved with some past disputes, and refuses to stick to the discussion's goals. I see that he is already involved in another dispute concerning his section blankings in another article. morelM William 14:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Mark Miller. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Earl Jones. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curia Pompeia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stage ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thanks for that minor, but necessary, spelling correction. Belchfire- TALK 10:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC) |
I was trying to imply that he's already posted a lot of content and that others have not had an opportunity to post and that he's grossly over the limit that is suggested on the page. We don't need the kitchen sink/entire article pasted here to understand consensus. Please re-think your pleading to let him run wild and post reams of content prior to the actual discussion opening. Hasteur ( talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 09:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hey, just saw your last close. Are you aware that RSN expressly says that it's not for dispute resolution? It says in its instructions: "This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard." I'm not complaining or criticizing, just want to give you an FYI in case you didn't know. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
That was breathtakingly kind of you, and much appreciated. Consider it a fresh start, and don't hesitate to participate on my talk page. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joan Crawford. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
End of Year Events from the
Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC) |
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Hey. Would you like to take a look at that discussion (it was previously at DRN but got unresolved, although I wa sable to help the disputeers to reach some sort of conclusions) and give some thoughts about the matter? The bot archived the previous threads on the talk, but I can give you a briefing here if you need. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ 21 15:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why did you close my post? I was hoping for commonsense on that article. GoodDay ( talk) 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kamehameha I did not have a sibling named Moana, although there was a chiefess named Moana who was the maternal grandmother of Charles Kanaina. Also according to Kamakau there was a chiefly family named Moana; a member was Puna, King Kalaniʻōpuʻu's governor in the Hana district. None of these figures are notable enough to warrant an article. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 05:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Editor retention
Thank you for quality contributions on difficult topics such as
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, for your work in
Editor Retention, even in
difficult cases, for presenting facts "in a neutral fashion, with compassion, understanding and a calm demeanor"(
more), - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
That was so nice of you. Thank you very much!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Manual_archiving_again Drmies ( talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to start off with a big thanks for spending time with the dispute. Your efforts are much appreciated. I edit a dark corner of wikipedia, and this is my first time at DRN. I am here because you mentioned that you would be closing the case tomorrow. Please don't close the case early, as I would like to make a few comments and am waiting for a response from Alan. In case there is no reply from them, I'll comment within 12 hrs from now regarding my future course of actions and if I don't, you may please close the case then. Another point I would like to stress is that I would really hate to get this issue escalated to rfc in case there are further disagreements after this case is closed, whereby a lot of editor time would be wasted. I would like to have a solution at DRN and want to get back to my normal wiki activities. Though it may be asking too much from you, I would like to have more specific recommendations from you, i.e. what you feel I and Alan would have to follow with respect to the objections raised and in case of future disagreements similar to what is reported in the case. I am willing to follow your suggestions/voluntary restrictions subject to similar agreements from Alan.Gilfroy. Thanks. Suraj T 18:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Amadscientist. I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you might take another look at some addition sources noted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Francis E. Dec. There are so many questionable sources that I don't know the right way to handle it. Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the drama.
Bearian (
talk) 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just wanted to let you know since I mentioned you, via a warning comment you made in the relevant discussion, about this AN/I report. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 09:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I've appreciated your feedback on the current issues at WT:V...if you would be comfortable doing so...and I would understand why you wouldn't be...I'd appreciate it if you were willing to look over the RFC at Talk:Synchronous motor. Please don't feel obligated though. Doniago ( talk) 14:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Per our comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention: what do you think is wrong with the RfC process? I know that there is a lot of discussion in an RfC and there is a declining number of admins but maybe we are trying to get better "class" of admins? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Mediran (
t •
c) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
That is so nice of you. Been in a bit of a "Bah Humbug" mood lately....but then a knock at the door brought a wonderful surprise of Omaha steaks. At first I thought we were getting a kidney when I saw the white cooler. LOL!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No trout here, just this fish. Look, I've enjoyed editing with you on that page, and I feel bad that we just had a misunderstanding. Happy holiday wishes, happy editing, and peace! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Koch brothers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Most people write "fixed typos", "oops", or "derp", but you break out of that norm entirely: [2]. Like • Jesse V. (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent contribution to the proposal at unconventional referencing style is appreciated, especially given your previously declared intention to sequestrate yourself. Thank you -- Senra ( talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the new/old Userbox. ``` Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
[3] And I do appreciate your helping hand. Perhaps I'm not fit for that "web 2.0". I'm of the old school that lives in a world of real people that have feelings and deserve respect. - Merry X-mas & take care! -- 46.115.123.95 ( talk) 16:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Belated greetings of the season to you as well.
I'll continue to watch Julius Caesar, but I'll probably confine myself to making suggestions and light editing. I have an interest in the topic outside Wikipedia, and I prefer to keep those spheres of activity separate as much as I can. Thanks for alerting me to the impending pop culture pressures on this set of articles. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays! | ||
Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013! |
Mmmmm cookies. Thanks!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (
talk) 13:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, and I hope you and yours are enjoying the Christmas season as well : ) - jc37 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Despite our rocky history of interaction, I very much appreciated your conciliatory gesture, and I hope that even if in future we have disagreements, we will do so with the understanding that it's not at all personal. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As my daddy used to say, "It takes two to tango". Please be the bigger person here and drop it. Thanks. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 02:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
TYVM Gtwfan52 ( talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, have you noticed the fact that WeirdWoman123 created an account recently, and has gone straight for reviewing two GA nominees- one in the Femme Fatale Tour and the other as we know is Wonder Woman. I think this user is fond of both the articles or the characters and artists they represent, and is trying to pass their reviews quickly. I'm sure I'm just assuming, but it's a bit weird.-- WonderBoy1998 ( talk) 11:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey.....don't look at me. I never said you couldn't review, just that as a new editor you do have to demonstrate that you know what you're doing. As I said...this is a collaboration.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Somehow something told me that Wonderboy and WeirdWoman might possibly be the same person. Could you please give your opinion on the same? [I haven't informed them of this post, but please do so if you deem it necessary] TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [Talkback please!]
Please don't take any of this as some kind of accusation. I may indeed be wrong, and do not even think I am necessarily saying I am right, but if it needs to be taken further, the stuff in this comment may prove useful.-- Coin945 ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 ( talk) 23:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no problem! I figured it would be a good idea to try to get photos of all the incoming Congresspeople, because their pages will be getting a pretty good amount of traffic soon. Luckily, one guy on Flickr was willing to change the license of his photo. Cheers. Delaywaves • talk 05:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Your New Editor barnstar is brilliant and I LOVE IT! Gandydancer ( talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there my friend! May the new year bring you health, wealth, and many happy Wikipedia editing experiences! Your friend, Gandy
The 'Brains Work Better in A Community' Award | ||
Thank you for all your efforts to befriend your fellow Wikipedian Editors (WE) and to protect them from infection. The more WE allow attack tactics, the more WE become imprisoned by the result. Sometimes WE need a reminder that WE are all human and entitled to respect. What's so bad about Peace, Love and Understanding? Do let me know if I can be of any help to you. ``` Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks Buster!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the new barnstar for new editors! I have one (perhaps nitpicky) request. Might it be possible to change the towel to green or something away from pink? As this site is dominated by males it could be enough to make someone think twice about giving it, it being pink and more "feminine" looking. Thanks again for your good work! Biosthmors ( talk) 21:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
2012 Annual Report
The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello, Amadscientist, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to email you, but you don't have it enabled. I had a favor to ask of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I will have to admit that I always thought your username was amandascientist...lol. I know better now. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As soon as User:Chantoke falls ill, the COI dispute tag was removed (by a magically appearing previously dormant editor who is deeply interested in this particular issue, what a coincidence), consistent with Peter Proctor being used to augment the credibility of a "snake oil salesman" (hair growth and other potions) as a recognized person of science (my theory). Since User:Chantoke is ill, and I have already clearly stated my position, perhaps you or other neutral people could review the situation. There exist a COI issue with implications for the credibility of Wikipedia.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- JuneGloom Talk 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, why did you remove your response? The first two especially are spot on! Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist. First I want to thank you for the many long hours you have volunteered for the project. It is through the efforts of volunteers that we have built this wonderful collection of knowledge and you've been an important part of that.
Myself, I read much more than I write. When I do write, it tends to be improving articles rather joining in discussions, mostly because I'm an IP. That's not to say I don't want to join in discussions, it's just that as an IP it often proves unproductive. So I tend to leave that to others. I must say that I have found your comments to be some of the most insightful around the project. Especially your comments at WT:RFA and the village pumps. You often say the same things I want to say, but you also contribute even more insight that has helped me understand things better. You have a very good understanding of the project and you see the big picture. You bring light to areas that most people are not thinking about and I find that to be extremely valuable. Wikipedia has problems and we, as a community, need to solve these problems and you are one of the very few people who are willing to help in this area. I cannot tell you how incredibly important this is for the health of the project. I believe your efforts to improve Wikipedia's operations are possibly the most valuable thing you do here.
I read you comments to my question at WER and I was glad you posted them and was hoping others would be able to learn from your wisdom. I completely understand why you removed them. As an IP, I understand that all too well. I just wanted to mention that I value your comments and I believe others do as well. I thought you should know that your comments benefit the project and the community in ways you probably didn't realize and they do have a positive effect on many people. So thanks for being a dedicated volunteer and helping in places where you see a need. It's often appreciated without you knowing it. Kind regards. 64.40.57.53 ( talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I quoted a post of yours at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lynette_Nusbacher. Insomesia ( talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It was an accidental rollback in the first instance. I use Google Chrome on a tablet and it has this zoom feature which sometimes selects the wrong hyperlink. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You were way out of line to do this. [7] I'm reporting what I observe. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist. Points 7 and 11 could be merged, as they're pretty much the same subject, if you're up to it?
in more than one way. If you get a chance, could you take a look at:
I confess I haven't been an active participant at DRN, and I'm well aware that Wikipedia creates unwritten conventions, some of which aren't obvious. However, from first principles, I would think that contributors should either be parties or facilitators, but not both. Deicas is acting as both, which would be problem enough, but his facilitator comments have been less than incisive.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I call to your attention to my unanswered question, in the Paul Krugman RfC:, "Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION?".
What needs to be done to get this "SCOPE" question answered authoritatively? Deicas ( talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The
Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013 | |
|
Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. |
I'm struggling with where to put this comment on the DRN page, so I'll try here, and see what you think.
You said:
First, lets remember a few unquestionable fact. This is a concept, not an actual coin. It would be a huge coin if it was.
Surely, and unquestionable fact should be...unquestionable. While there is no doubt the concept is important, there isn't much doubt that they are literally planning to mint a coin. Literally, and not in the metaphorical use of the word literal that seems to be the fashion these days. I guess your comment about being a big coin is a bit of a joke, but it makes me wonder if you are following the issue. No, it doesn't have to be a big coin. There was a time when the metal value of a coin had to match the numerical amount on the coin, but that isn't the case anymore. Are you under the impression that it is? (Which is too bad, as it would eliminate the chance for a gimmick.) And when you go on to say that This is political, economic theory, that simply states the President of the United States could fund the government . No, absolutely not. They aren't planning to fund anything. They are pretending to fund with a loophole that, if allowed, would mean they can ignore the debt ceiling. It does virtually nothing for funding. You are on the right track, that this is particularly about politics, moreso that seigniorage, but it isn't really much about economics, except that it might take a little knowledge of economics to understand that it has nothing to do with funding, and is pure politics. Krugman isn't weighing in because be is a economists, and is debating the economics of the issue, he is weighing in because he is a political partisan with a bully pulpit who is weighing in on the political aspects of the gimmick. Sorry, I'm sliding into a rant, but surely you know as a facilitator that you should start with unquestioned facts, and ease into the more controversial aspects. (I'm guessing it was your intent.) -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I know it is normally not appropriate to remove someone else's post, but given your goal of brevity in opening statements, I trimmed my opening as requested, and then removed your request, and responded here, rather than add to the clutter by adding my response to the section. Obviously, if you prefer to handle it differently, feel free to.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I call your attention to my entry [9] at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey mate...just letting you know that sort of thing is best to be substituted or put under a level 2 header, because when I clicked edit to reply to it, look where it ended up! :) Thanks for keeping up the good work :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, thanks for posting that on my talk page, but before I take another case, I wanted to see if you can give me some feedback on how I did in my first case and if you have any suggestions on how to improve. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins ! 03:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Earl Jones. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand! | ||
For your efforts of getting " Editor of the Week" off the drawing board and onto the pages of our first recepient. Well done.``` Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC) |
A bit of a rocky start, then settled down. I don't think we've seen the end of it forever, but perhaps for now. Nice work.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist, it was me and not Deicas who refactored the "No consensus" quote, as I explain and apologize for in the DRN thread, truly sorry!
Zad
68
21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist... A quick fix is needed near the bottom of
WP:DRN. The template {{DRN archive bottom} after American Psycho is missing a second closing curly-brace and it's causing the new Emotional Freedom Techniques section not to show up. I'd fix it myself but I'm gun-shy now... Just FYI. The only reason why I'm pointing this out is that due to terrible luck, it's a DRN I will also probably be involved in. Cheers...
Zad
68
03:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You know what's really cheap? To quickly get your "last word" in to an argument and then quickly close it so that the other person can't reply. And this is "mediation"? Sheesh. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Question: May I remove your opt out header to combine with mine to create a unified "Opt Out" section? We both opt out on the grounds that we're only people who tried to help resolve the issue from the DRN thread. If you want to make the conversion, I'm ok with that too. Thanks Hasteur ( talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that lawsuits are all that is known about him. Charles Kanaina like his niece Kalama were a rather low ranking chiefs; Lunalilo derived his rank from his mother. He might have been a half brother or adoptive brother of Kanaina, but I think that is pretty much that is known about him.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, don't want to be rude but can you check in on the Franken GA Review, I've added the references and waiting what needs to be improved, if any. Best, Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
My primary concern there wasn't the Coat of arms of the State of Palestine article, it's the Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority article. The dispute is primarily over the Palestinian National Authority article, and what it's scope it. That's related to the AFD of the "State of Palestine" article, but weather to keep the State article, and the scope of the Authority article (which has covered the state sense 2011), are separate issues. If he won't discuss, and DRN won't be of any help, what am I supposed to do? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
There were seven seperate notifications. I have cleaned them up and reduced them to one.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 ( talk) 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kaldari ( talk) 02:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Verifiability shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Igor,
In doing research / writing I came across this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Futurist_Manifesto
There have been copyrighted translations of the original that have run afowl, but if I simply get a reputable Italian art critic to translate from Italian to English can that be posted to Wikisource? If I'm not mistaken the source document is not the issue - it's the translation. What might be the possible issues given that some of the language will be the same? I know enough of the right people to get this done.
Thank You Very Much, haddon
THANK YOU - will keep plugging away. Where / how would I find an Italian Wikipedin translator to work with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Last Suggested Page Reads (and is far beyond my insight): "This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Pages are added to tracking categories through templates." Dhaddonpearson ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks will look into it, classes taking a bit of time at the moement, thanks again. Dhaddonpearson ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this article: BPA Worldwide I came upon it quite by accident as I frequently edit the BPA (chemical) page. I think it should be deleted but I don't know how to go about it. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 02:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
This is to tell you that all articles at the Holding Area are already selected, and no further Supports are required for them. Please do not add any more Supports there.
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 12:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Nice work on the TAFI logo. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, another editor recently removed your comments at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Holding area. Here is the diff page: [12]. While it's unnecessary to !vote in the holding area, I feel it is prudent to notify you about this matter. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mad. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I know that you have contributed in the musical theatre area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! -- EpochFail( talk • work) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Here, thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Muppets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist, as a member of the WikiProject Catholicism could you please advise me on an article I am researching. I am expanding the “historical” section in the article Royal Succession Bills and Acts. The theme of this new section is anti-Catholic-popery legislations, brought about in the reign of Henry VIII, then later monarchs, culminating in the current legislation and House of Commons/Lords debates about the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012. I am seeking relevant comparisons between the military and political influences of popes and English / UK monarchs during historical times, and when these influences ended.
Can you tell me, advise me of an interested Editor, or direct me to a WP or on-line source, which (respectfully) define historical popes as political &/or military authorities, in comparison with corresponding monarchs? I am especially interested in dates and legislation, influential in the rise, peak and decline of such popes. (Please reply here, or Talk:Royal Succession Bills and Acts). Thanks Steve. Stephen2nd ( talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeking wider input on a proposed redesign of the nomination process over at TAFI. The current method could benefit from some streamlining and usability tweaks. If you feel so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X ( submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 ( submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Also, a quick mention of The C of E ( submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mad! I noticed your reach out message at his page, and I wanted to let you know that I took him back to ANI again for the same old crap. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 04:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
When you get a chance, can you update the sidebar graphic thing for User:Diiscool? Thanks. Go Phightins ! 23:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Amadscientist, I was wondering if you could take a few minutes to check this peer review I started. I'm trying to get the article up to GA status, but there doesn't seem to be a lost of help out there. Thanks for your time, and sorry about the "new message" banner this activated; that thing always worries me, thinking "what'd I do this time?" Best, Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there MadSci. Could you give me a hand at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article? I have written up a split for the Volume and extent section. It's on the talk page (#20.1) - it's all ready to go but I don't know how to do the actual splitting work. If it is a long and involved process I would expect that it would not be something you'd be interested in, but if it takes only a few minutes, perhaps you'd be willing? Gandydancer ( talk) 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been working on the page Otto Plath for a while, and right now I am focusing on adding some pictures. On the talk page of the article I have provided links to two pictures of Otto which I think would add to the quality of the article, however, I am unfortunately inexperienced with images on Wikipedia. So, I would be greatly appreciative if I could get some assistance in the process of properly uploading these pictures so I can easily work with them. Thanks -- Philpill691 ( talk) 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Teahouse Host Badge | |
Awarded to hosts at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like
Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. |
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Per talk "I have tagged the "Health effects" section as, from what I'm reading, this will turn out to be a very large section/story. These effects are only beginning to be reported. But, I mean for the split to happen in keeping with Wiki guidelines and in communication with other editors. And just like with the "ecological" split, the remaining section should remain large (roughly the size it is now) even after the split, in relation to its importance."
You split the section off leaving a blank section, without any contact with other editors and in direct conflict of this talk page entry. Please put it back - removing the "health effects" from the article of the largest oil spill in US history is certainly "mad". petrarchan47 t c 20:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The other editor, Apostle12 has commented on the articles talk page again, suggesting that marking the dispute as resolved is premature. reopen? start new discussion? please advise. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You've been selected at random from WP:FRS, where you are listed as an editor willing to help with RfCs related to biographical articles. If you have time, could you provide your input to an RfC here involving issues of libel and defmation in relation to author Jared Diamond. Cheers. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I think that things are going nowhere for the TAFI, as far as the main page is concerned. In my opinion, the most viable way to solve this situation is to simply start an RFC on the main page talk to finalize all the little details (Where do we put it, How many lines, How do we balance it, etc etc). Link this rfc from CENT and the watchlist, and village pump, and jimbo's talk page. Get others to comment on it, and have a decision taken. This seems to be the best and in this case, possibly the only way, to actually implement it on the main page anytime soon. What do you think?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 14:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter
We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
February blitz and
March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Should be back sometime this week.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the
Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at
the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the
Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the
TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the
Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the
Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current
Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
Hi Amadscientist, it's nice to see you using your experience to answer questions at the Teahouse, the new people need you! I just wanted to remind you to greet people when you start a discussion, and be extra friendly and patient. Many people are overwhelmed by their early Wikipedia experience and may come to us already a little agitated and confused. It's also helpful if you explain a policy rather than linking to it (if at all possible). Again, thanks for your work, heather walls ( talk) 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(Also, I love your self portrait!)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
[•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Thank you for your detailed replies on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How do I move a page now that consensus has been achieved. Who could close the discussion and how to contact an admin to move this page? Thank you again for your help. Lesion ( talk) 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment. RFCUs should be closed promptly if the issues are resolved. After 30 days they should be closed as soon as possible unless there are ongoing disruptions.
The closure of an Rfc may be reviewed at the Administrators' noticeboard. An Rfc may not be overturned on the basis the closing editor is not an administrator.
To remove an RfC from the active RfC list, remove the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page. The RfC bot will automatically remove an RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. It is unusual to extend an RfC beyond 30 days, but if there are no objections, or if the closer decides to extend it, this can be done by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date.
All requests for comment on a user, as opposed to an article, should be closed in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.
You can request the move a couple of ways. You can pick a random, uninvolved admin from this page: Wikipedia:List of administrators and simply ask for assistance in moving the page if consensus is clearly for the move or you can request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Although that does have a backlog and could take a good deal of time to get done.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to help with this page. I was a principal early editor and organizer and then did not edit for a long time. When I returned there was an ongoing effort to trim the article that had some validity due to the length, yet seemed consistently to delete, more often than not, facts that put BP and/or Transocean in a bad light, while preserving all the corporate heroic containment efforts and monetary sacrifices. One clearly less-experienced editor leans the other way and has erred on the side of inserting too much material.
When I was first editing there was considerable vandalism and unusual amount of undos.
Please note that cover-up of the facts is not theoretical here, but was charged by the federal government. The volume and extent of the spill was downplayed, inaccurately, from almost the start of the disaster. This was a very serious event not only for the environment, but involves -- even after plea bargaining and settlement -- misdemeanors, felonies, manslaughter, and record-setting fines.
Maintaining the integrity of the page shouldn't have to be a full time job but it appears that some editors have been driven off, beaten down.
Please see my recent comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Article_clean_up:_splits.2C_merges.2C_summaries_etc.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#No_more_splits
and finally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Dispersal.2FCorexit. Thanks. Popsup ( talk) 07:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Jackson Peebles ( talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide ( talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I picked you at random from the retention project. Please will you offer a helping hand to User talk:Tallfromstpaul, whose heart is most definitely in the right place, and who needs some gentle guidance. His first article may or may not survive a deletion discussion and it would be a crying shame to lose him in the hurly burly of the discussion. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for recent discussion of verifiability, etc. at my talk page (LeProf 7272). I have been away and very preoccupied with work and other demands. Look to you and similarly thoughtful, as hope of wikipedia. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.63.82 ( talk) 14:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Will Klatt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
...to remind you that you kick ass. I'm barely around except to nom a few people and do a little maintenance, work is a bear right now. It should lighten up by summer. I appreciate you moving forward with WP:WER and improving the place. This is exactly what I wanted, others to take the idea and move it ahead, not depending on me to do so. You have risen to the occasion, to say the least. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Oh my gosh. Thank you Dennis. I was afraid you wouldn't like it.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 19:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please could you place all your comments in one section, "Statement by Amadscientist", at the current RfAR. The instructions at the top of the page disallow threaded discussion. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 12:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Amadscientist. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse explaining the requirements for copying between Wikipedia articles. It was right on and very informative. Thanks for doing that!
Great Answer Badge | |
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Amadscientist. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse explaining the requirements for copying between Wikipedia articles. It was right on and very informative. Thanks for doing that!
Great Answer Badge | |
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the
Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. |
Ocaasi
t |
c 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 21:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your encouraging advice (from Sacramento? Aaaaah Sacramento! I 'jumped' a train in the railway sidings once; went all the way to Oregon). Anyway, about these pesky images. The one that's bugging me is the exterior of the Selexyz bookstore in Maastrict. Apart from the fact that it looks like any old other boring Dutch building, whoever's put it up on the page hasdn't realised that the subject under description is interiors, Drrr! The architects who designed the spectacul reordering of this former cathedral have loads of pictures on the internet (just put 'Merkx + Girod into your Google search box). So how do I capture same? Ask Merkx and Girod? Just help myself? Or what? Further elucidation of the magical Wikicyberworld will be gratefully received! CORREZE ( talk) 08:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist. Just a minor quibble with one of your recent Teahouse responses: you stated
here that an editor could use the drop-down Cite menu for Harvard referencing - unless you know something I don't, that's not actually the case. The standard {{
cite}}
templates produced by that option don't create the parenthetical referencing that Harvard requires; that's why we have the specific {{
harv}}
template for such references.
It is, of course, possible that I'm wrong - if you do know of a way to create Harvard-style refs using the automated tool, please do tell! Yunshui 雲 水 08:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Amadscientist, I think I read somewhere that you are involved in the architectural content of Wikipedia. Heving completed my church reordering task, I'd like to get stuck into something new. Do you have any suggestions for (architectural) subjects which are currently under-represented within the Wikicanon? I looked up Greene & Greene (my all-time architectural heroes!) last night and it's a reasonably thorough coverage that I'd hesitate to improve on - living so far from Padadena (!). Also Carlo Scarpa: a fairly superficial item I felt, but I suppose I'd have to go to Italy to do him justice. Or how about Cuban Ruins? Any thoughts? CORREZE ( talk) 10:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A clerk changed them all to be consistent. You are now edit warring with a clerk on an RFAR, by accident I know, but you still might want to change the heading back. Btw, there is no such thing as "uninvolved" once you've made a statement there. You've become involved (in the case) by adding the statement. Killer Chihuahua 11:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have called youno names, and am distressed that you have misunderstood my intent and meaning so thoroghly. My post wast meant as a kindly, helpful gesture. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding, and I assure you that I had no idea you would take it this way. Had i the slightest inkling you would take my post as hostile in any way, i would have either not made it or i would have phrased myself differently. Puppy ( talk) 08:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:I am glad I caught this before I took off. You probably just didn't realise that "youre not this much a jerk" is a passive-aggresive form of name calling. I truly accept your apology and do not really hold anything against you. I actually like you a great deal, but more importantly, I respect you and your work. I also apologise for my overreaction, but I do tend to get offended by any form of name calling. Just get better and don't worry about my concerns. I have withdrawn from the arbcom case and don't want you to feel there is any anymosity towards you over this to worry about in the future. I hope all is well with you. Take care of yourself!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)−:
I received three e-mail alerts that you had sent me a message, but can't seem to find it on the Tea House page. Was it my query of two days ago about identifying architectural topics that are currently unrepresented on Wikipedia? Or something else? On a personal note (are Wikipedians permitted to make personal observations - this 'place' seems to have more rules than an English Public School!), would that be Yosemite on your site perchance? Correze CORREZE ( talk) 09:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Teahouse First Birthday Badge | |
Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
Eventually I will return and follow through with any questions, concerns or replies.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The Purple Star | ||
I know from experience that there is a particularly piquant pain involved when all you're trying to do is to do is help people or take an upright, neutral position for the common good, but the result is that everyone who was fighting with one another turn around and jump on you instead. When one engages in beating swords into plowshares, it's ordinarily done with an anvil but sometimes you end up using your forehead, instead. What you've been doing is valuable and important and the community owes you a debt of gratitude for it. You are appreciated, even if it doesn't always seem that way. Your friend, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
``` Buster Seven Talk 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I received your e-mail and responded.
Thanks also for posting some suggestions for architectural topics which I might tackle (I also responded to this list). I have one fresh (and highly topical) architectural suggestion: to whom do I submit it for consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CORREZE ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you're the one who formatted the awards box on the Dorian Awards page, but if it WAS you, thanks very, very much. Blurbadeeblurb ( talk) 07:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Dr-pepper-can.jpg | Repaying my debt |
I owe you one. Go Phightins ! 03:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
I finally made it to 24,000 edits. And that is really still behind what I should be at for 6 years.
-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop reformatting my text into a single long paragraph. This makes it hard to read, and seems dishonest to me. Thanks.
-- Drhankh ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but please stop doing it. It doesn't reduce the amount of words at all, it make it hard to read because it removes paragraphs, and it's not your proper role to edit my writing. I am not editing yours. You are making my material difficult to read. Stop doing it now. You had your chance to read it, leave it alone and let others read it with my paragraphs.
However, thanks for taking the time to add a Keep comment on the Steve Cottle Afd. -- Drhankh ( talk) 06:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I am paying to attention to what the other editor did, and to what you are doing, and am making the paragraphs bigger so that there are less of them. Alright? Now please leave it alone when I redo it. Drhankh ( talk) 07:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
"Call to close this thread. No admin intervention required unless a temp block to the OP for disruption, COI and battleground mentality."
If I understand this correctly, the OP seems to refer to me as Original Poster. If so, you seem very vindictive and are abusing your position. Drhankh ( talk) 07:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, you initiated this communication with your long reply comments and criticisms, your reformatting and frequent changes. I feel they are too frequent, and I am discontinuing our communications and will not be responding further to you. I feel you have taken a hostile position, and think rather than a discussion back and forth between two people who aren't meshing, let's stop and please let other people have the opportunity to read the material at their leisure and comment if they choose. Alright? -- Drhankh ( talk) 07:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
After 6 years with the name Theatre District, New York, one editor campaigned to make the move without notifying anyone who actually writes about theatre in New York. That was not legitimate. I agree that there should be a move review. Thanks for any advice. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, I'm not accusing you or insulting you. I'm suggesting that if a third back-to-back RM is pursued, it would be considered disruptive, tendentious, forum shopping, etc. I've also suggested that dwelling unreasonably on the idea that the concerns of your wikiproject override all other concerns would be fetishistic in the philosophical sense (i.e. having too much faith in the supposed innate value of something that has no actual power of its own); Wikipedia works by consensus building and compromise, not assertion of righteousness. :-) Your recent statement that you realize WP:DEADHORSE applies means you aren't going that route, so such hypothetical "would bes" do not actually apply to you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your request. Please see my comments to Ssilvers on their talk. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious why you collapsed all my inputs at the US DRN case, and then started asking new questions afresh. Of course, anyone can provide input at any DRN case; but you said you were withdrawing from the case. So I stepped in. You then proceeded to essentially ignore all the work I did and started over. Just curious. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer at Talk:Scott_Allie#Image_choice. I hope it will lead to a positive resolution of a situation that was more complicated than I could have imagined. However, it just occurred to me that the uploader is me. I think the proper person to get permission from is the copyright holder - I can help with contact, if necessary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I am very sorry if my remarks at the Teahouse could be construed as rude. I ran across the West Virginia State Constitution page. WOW, it needed work. I wanted to know the way, in Wikipedia, one would be able to properly cite the actual public document. I have looked at several US State Constitutional pages. Some of them are great, AND they quote their states Constitution and some have zero refs, some have refs, some use a citation method I have yet to see, SO, I thought, why not ask at the tea house? I apologize with utter sincerity, if what I replied with was in any manner rude. Coal town guy ( talk) 02:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much - for your digging I can tell you that Paul Thomas' middle name is Winston from this online source http://www.govhouse.qld.gov.au/ceremonial_honours/ad2007honours.aspx - thank you again! SistaSu ( talk) 09:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again Amadscientist - I now have a verifiable citation for DOB. SistaSu ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks again for your continued help in the ongoing battle with trolls. Drmies ( talk) 03:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you so much.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Claremont. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo ( talk) 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That edit was the work of my evil twin, Skippy. David in DC ( talk) 05:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
If the past appearance of the article is so poor like no references, spelling mistakes and copyright violated images but its current position is according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Then, its reputation will depend on past appearance OR current appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Does article quality depends on edit history, e.g.common delinker edits or edit history is of no use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at isaacl's talk page.
I've replied to your post on the talkpage for Adam Ant. I've also made some revisions to your edits. I look forward to working constructively with you on this issue. 195.92.109.20 ( talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
hey this is the official team of middle east n pakistani model AYYAN we make the page of wiki of ayyan somebody changing it to ayyan ali but her name is only ayyan u can check her official fanpage http://www.facebook.com/AYYANMODEL n we need ure hepl plzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merocks9 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Amadscientist, I'm the one who created the first redirect that Merocks9 is complaining about. There were two articles about the same person so I created a redirect from the very badly written one to the OK one. But since Merocks9 (COI issue, I'm guessing) did not like that I've created a redirect going in the direction they want ( Ayyan Ali to Ayyan) and copied the information from the good page replacing the stuff in the bad page (copyright violations everywhere, purple prose, badly edited, etc.).
I don't know why Merocks9 contacted you but if you are so inclined please take a look at how I handled it and see if you think it should be done differently. I'm also anticipating an entirely needless edit war over all of this so your help would be appreciated in dealing with that as well. Thanks. SQGibbon ( talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Amadscientist - Edits since 8 March 2013 to Adam Ant 95.144.236.108 ( talk) 00:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Ant's musical career, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Robb ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I would be very grateful if you would comment on the theory below. I have sent it to several physics students and their professors at the University of Manchester and am very keen to learn what they think, apparently it won't go into the Pedia unless scientific bods go through it. My first job in the theatre was understudying Hamlet, at the RSC. I liked your comment about it.
General Theory of Everything
The variable speed at which the DNA spiral travels through time and space results in several different effects:
a)Acceleration of gravity is proportionally slower from our point of view and presents a weakened force when compared to the rest of the lifeless universe.
b)Galaxies, seeming to accelerate away from each other at the outer edges of space, don't, it's just that time is running slower for us compared to them.
c)We can actually see other planets with DNA cruising at the same rate through time, and they appear to be dark, as light is too fast to travel though the slower timelines between us. They look like black holes.
d)Approximately one sixth of the entire mass of the universe runs at out rate through time. The rest appears to be invisible as it runs at a faster rate and is commonly called dark matter.
e)Evolution. It is inevitable that creation should eventually come up with a being that is self-aware.
Concluding, as we can only see a sixth of the entire mass of the universe, presumably we get about a sixth of the general gravity, and spend about a sixth of the time going through regular space. Which is the nature of our situation.
I am so eager for anybody to respond to these ideas. What do you think Amadscientist? Michael David Howells ( talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui 雲 水 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 ( talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist, did you start the WikiProject Conflict Resolution? If so, please share how you did it. I'd like to start a WikiProject. Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey there- Because, you cared enough to actually answer a question I had, here is another.....I have noticed that US County pages here on Wikipedia do not have what folks here would call, an agreed upon template. As you guessed, I have liiterally contributed articles to all 55 of WV counties. Each of the 55 WV county pages has, its own, layout, or rather, presentation. Some have Notable Residents, Some have curious facts, (HEY WE HAVE A NEW WALMART!!!) others are bare bones....Is there a place where one could try to gather consensus and start getting a template or format that folks would say, WOW, that is a worthy of Webster way to be encyclopedic about a US County??? I very much appreciate any reply you could give Coal town guy ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am working on articles about Kiribati. There is a plant that's very important in Kiribati and throughout the Pacific, but it's got different names in different islands, I thought I'd just link to an existing page about this plant but things are not so simple. An article exists about this plant, but it is from the Tuvaluan perspective and uses the Tuvaluan name Pulaka. But the same plant is equally important in other Pacific cultures. It is known as ~ puraka in Cook Islands, ~ te babai in Kiribati, ~ pula’a in Samoa, ~ via kan in Fiji, ~ pulaka in Tokelau, Tuvalu, ~ simiden in Chuuk, ~ swam taro in PNG, ~ navia in Vanuatu [1]
To make things worse, this same plant has at least four scientific names too [2] .
The article about this plant in the French Wikipedia handles all these issues much better, using the neutral name "Giant Swamp Taro" and listing its local names [13].
My question is, how to handle this issue. Do I go in and edit Pulaka which would sort of ruin a perfectly correct article about the cultivation of this crop in Tuvalu, or do I create a new page on "Giant Swamp Taro" in which case I will struggle as I am no botanist (though I could start by translating the French one I suppose).-- Obkiribati1 ( talk) 22:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm interested on knowing more about the Conflict resolution project, and what your ideas are for it exactly (as I'm not quite clear from what I'm reading on the talk page). Do you have some time within the next 48 hours to do a Skype call/Google Hangout? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked a question in the Teahouse but no one has responded to my question, though people have responded to the most recent question. It's the question about Camp Agawam editing. It was based on whether or not I can use videos as references. Mfribbs ( talk) 12:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm awake and ready now, so whenever you are. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 19:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)`
User Kelvinsong, our first recepient, has responded to my request and will help create a new banner. His skills are awesome! Can you contact him and give him some guidance as to what might be best. Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#barnstar used in recepient notification if you wonder what this is about. Tks. ``` Buster Seven Talk 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I added info to his filmography, namely a 1942 movie, A Night To Remember. It was added but the column is now askew. Can you fix this or tell me how. The movies are all in order now but not all in column form.. Let me know. Tipster025 ( talk) 04:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Amadscientist, I see you've had a couple of blocks for edit-warring, but given that the last block was over a year ago and because I saw nothing problematic in a scan of your recent contributions, I've granted your request. Remember to use rollback to revert vandalism and never on good-faith edits or in content disputes; if you're ever unsure about using rollback, opt to use a manual revert with a proper edit summary. Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback is available for a short course on the tool if you need it. Good luck and have fun! :) Acalamari 09:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
After seeing your comment, I realized the way I added an idea it might look as though I was adding another idea from Jimbo.
I've edited for clarity.
I am very interested in your feedback, because I value your opinion. At some time I plan to add the idea for auto-name creation to VP Idea, then to proposal, if it doesn't get shot down at the idea stage, but I'm looking for some feedback before I copy it to VP Idea Lab.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Resolving a dispute about resolving disputes. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 04:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mark;
Thank you for invitation to
Wikiproject Conflict Resolution. I was looking at the project page, and curious to learn more. How does that compliment / differ from
WikiProject Dispute Resolution? Also, how would this work? How do members intercede in conflicts, etc?
Enquire (
talk) 05:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)