User talk:Alanscottwalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2


Contents

Credo[edit]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

If you did not receive an email from either Sadads or me, could you please post to WT:OUP/Approved? I'd like to be able to pass on the remaining approved accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

re: Margaret Abraham[edit]

Good finds. Being a president of ASA's automatically makes her pass WP:BIO, and those sources are enough for a stub at least. PS. In the future, I'd suggested posting such a question to WT:SOCIO and echoing me there. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I appreciated the "cold comfort" note. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what Americans would call cold comfort, indeed, thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

focus
Thank you for your contributions to quality articles such as George Solti, for creating them, such as Louis Purnell, and for requesting focus saying: It is only slightly more wordy to say, "that comment makes no sense because ..." than to say, "you're an idiot", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 232nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Proposed deletion of Tara Zahra[edit]

Hello, Alanscottwalker. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Tara Zahra, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. st170etalk 01:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

BLPN[edit]

Oops! You had me triple-guessing myself there. :) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Shame and embarrassment emoticon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the only mistake either of us makes today then I'll count this one as a very good day. Those pages all start to look alike sometimes anyway. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

DYK for Tami Bond[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Heiwa Terrace[edit]

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

RM notification[edit]

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At Territories of the United States[edit]

Thanks for your support at Talk:United States#Area in square miles. The discussion proceeds as last year, with TFD misreading my sources and providing no sources of his own. Unlike last year, he has not begun reverting on the article mainspace.

But TFD has now at Territories of the United States attempted to remove the section I wrote on 21st century territories, claiming they were “random collection of facts used to argue territories are part of U.S.” I have opened a discussion section at Talk:Territories of the United States#21st century (current) territories. Please give a look to see if I have overstepped. I mean only to properly lay out one side of the argument, appropriately sourced, and allow for inclusion of both sides, appropriately sourced.

I understand that there are those who believe the U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S., --- though they are represented by Members of Congress (Delegate, Commissioner) chosen by U.S. federal elections and are "native-born" Americans according to the U.S. Census classification. In the 21st century, islanders have mutually agreed with the Congress to be a part of the U.S. by referendum. But regardless of whether you find that persuasive, I believe I should get a fair hearing, and both sides should be properly sourced. Thanks in advance for any contribution you would want to make. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

U.S. square area[edit]

Perhaps a footnote such as recommended by you could be in order to accommodate the territorial excluders, -- to the effect that a) the states and DC alone are reported as having an area of 3,796,742 sq.mi., but leave the 3.80 million sq.mi. in the article mainspace intro and 3,805,927 sq.mi. in the info box. Would you see if that footnote proposal could calm the waters towards a consensus here for geographic area? -- OR would you prefer b) the 3,796,742 sq.mi. in the info box and a footnote for total area of 3,805,927 sq.mi. to include the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, could we have both in the infobox:
                                          X mi/km (inhabited total)[fn]
                                          Y mi/km (States and DC) [fn]

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Best idea yet. Thanks. It is my contention that both inclusion and exclusion views should be represented, as can be reliably sourced.
I'm still looking for a source which uses the 1901 judicial invention of "unincorporated" territory which would say, "The official United States of America are the judicially classified "incorporated" fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll." Somehow incorporated/unincorporated classification is so arcane a judicial term of art that I cannot find its practical application to the reporting of geographical area of the United States anywhere but in the minds of three WP editors.
But lets go forward with a collaborative online encyclopedia. Would you mind posting your idea for "both" to the Poll subsection I just created at Talk:United States? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”,
  • A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.
  • B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.
Although I have posted your idea for both twice so far, the results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

RfC[edit]

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Wall of text at Talk:United States[edit]

The wall of text at Talk:United States is generated by my interpreting TFD as good faith inquiry into the subject. I suppose some would consider TFDs comments a form of wp:disruption as I sometimes do, but part of me answers as a retired school teacher responding to belligerent questioning as an opportunity to reinforce the lesson with additional sources, part of me responds to my child at four years repeatedly asking Why? to each response without any discussion contribution of her own. I think my extended commenting to answer straw man arguments is technically called “feeding the trolls”. But my posts are 1/3 to 1/4 shorter than last year’s...in part because my sourcing is better and the use of single brackets. Thank you for the West Publishing example, I had found it during research, but I did not understand the status of the publisher posting the information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the unhelpful behavior of 'trouting'. Being snarky isn't funny, and doesn't help the recipient hold a proper conversation about how to improve the encyclopedia. For the record, my action was not silly in any way, and everything you said about it was completely and utterly demonstrative of an interest in something, I know not what, but something other than the improvement of Wikipedia. I didn't and don't appreciate it. Please be more mature in the future.-- Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What? There was nothing snarky about it. If you cannot accept that other people will sometimes see your actions as silly and unhelpful and will tell you so and why, than it is you who are acting immature. There is no 'interest in something' - I said exactly what I mean and why I was saying it -- and your either dark innuendo, here, or assumption of bad faith is not an improvement to Wikipedia. Either directly address my concern or don't but your innuendo is most uncivil.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I apologize, my objections to TFD postings seem so mild compared to WP fare one can often find, but I will happily retract them. I meant a) to recognize that my responses to unsourced TFD objections filled up the page "as a wall of text" which I would prefer to avoid in the future, and b) to thank Alanscottwalker for nailing down the reliable source by West Publishers for a legal definition of "U.S. Territories" which was mirrored on another website where I could not determine the author's source. I recognize from my discussion with older≠wiser and Alanscottwalker that I need to make a more concise argument next time, otherwise the situation seems "too complex" and "murky". TFD remains unhelpfully unsourced.
Somehow I find my post being characterized as "trouting", --- I thought "trouting" had to be delivered directly to the user? That is not my intent, my intent is to follow wp:psts and wp:or as to secondary sources on the subject of the 21st century status of the five major territories, --- as opposed to maintaining that their status is unchanged since 1901 or in 1922 --- WITHOUT sources. See Lawson and Sloane (2009) "endlessly" referenced, cited, linked and directly quoted as to the 21st century "incorporation" of Puerto Rico, regardless of its 1901 or 1922 status. It remains without a scholarly counter-source supplied in opposition. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
NO. Another editor came here and posted in the section you created. So, trouting (and that whole comment) has nothing to do with you. :) Alanscottwalker (talk)
Thanks. somehow it is reassuring not to say comforting, that TFD is not Jimmy Wales. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources[edit]

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Close review, second closing[edit]

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". 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 December 2014.

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. 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, 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/United States, 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Request for mediation/United States[edit]

I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]