User talk:Samwalton9

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

Countersteering[edit]

Hello Sam with regard the edit " warring" that is currently taking place on the Wikipedia Countersteering article. I have repeatedly suggested that reference be allowed to a patent application that contains a complete technical description of the vehicle in dispute. The Wheels Article was allowed as a reference but the Journalist who wrote it states within his article, that he cant fully explain the vehicle because patent applications were not lodged. Patent applications were subsequently lodged and passed the examination phase in the USPTO. see here to see the article. http://www.tiltingvehicle.net/ACS.html Under these circumstances I don't see my side of the dispute as " warring" Regards Phillip.Cambering (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phillip. I don't know much about the article in question, but because you were repeatedly (assuming you were the logged out editor also) adding unsourced content and not discussing when reverted I warned you about edit warring. Best to take this to the Countersteering talk page to discuss the matter with Atlesn who was reverting you. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sam, Phillip here. No one knows much about the vehicle and user Atlesn in in that category. He insists on his own flawed interpretation of the patent application even though the Patent Examiner passed the application. I suggest that here is a clear example where personal prejudice is interrupting the proper function of Wikipedia. I hope that it is perfectly clear that I seek only to expand the Wikipedia article on countersteer based on a patent application that was approved for issue by the USPTO. This is now a catch22 situation because the article has been locked and the user Atlesn has demonstrated that he does not grasp the technical description contained within the patent application and is not prepared to accept reasonable negotiations. The article is now locked and incorrect and misleading descriptions remain in the article and this is not acceptable. The reverter Atlesn chooses only to reference the incomplete description in the Wheels article and not the full description in the patent application for the vehicle that is referred to in the Wheels magazine article! The reason?... he is not technically capable of understanding the patent application. Cheers PhillipCambering (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Phillip, I believe the issue is with the source being a patent rather than anything else, but you appear to be having a good discussion about it on the Countersteering talk page. If you really don't feel like you're getting anywhere with the discussion, there are a number of dispute resolution venues from which you could get outside opinions. For example if the debate is only between yourself and Atlesn, a third opinion might be in order. Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sam, I don't believe I will get anywhere. There is a technical point with regard the use of patents as a reference. The stated Wikepedia policy is that a Patent/ Patent application can be referenced to prove that it[ the application] does exist and a link to it can be made. In my particular example there is a fully accepted published Wheels Magazine[ with link to it] that shows a vehicle and the journalist makes comments about it and also states that " full details cant be revealed because patent applications are yet to be lodged". This was in 1987. Then , subsequently the patent application that covered the vehicle in the Wheels magazine WAS in fact lodged. However the editors in " countersteering" insist on trying to divine how the vehicle works based solely on the description in the Wheels Magazine and wont allow me to link to the patent application that clearly describes the vehicle!!! This defies belief! So, I am stuck with editors trying to describe the vehicle based[ solely] on a description by a journalist who did not understand it fully and those same editors refuse to use the patent application which is absolutely precise in its description. I am not seeking to justify any claims by referencing a patent, all I am seeking to do is reference the patent application mentioned in the Wheels article. Then, anyone who wants to see how it is claimed to work by the inventor[ myself by the way] can look at the patent application record at WIPO. Makes sense? But No! The only words that can be used are those words directly used in the magazine... need I go on? [ I have a tendency to]. So I will be taking this matter further unless you can do something to influence the process. I am not entirely sure how you fit into this. Regards PhillipCambering (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, keep discussing on the talk page and dispute resolution venues are the way to go if your discussions with other editor(s) aren't yielding a good consensus, there's not much more I can do because a) I'm not familiar with the subject in the slightest and b) know next to nothing about patents! The page protection has expired, so I don't fit into this much at all anymore unfortunately! Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User name conflict[edit]

Hi, Sam, thanks so much for your helpful note. As I am a newbie here I am quickly learning the policies and they do make sense to me. As soon as I was alerted that using my real name might be problematic for various reasons I applied for username change following the instructions suggested to me by Hoops gza. I hope I did that correctly as the change has not come into effect yet (I did that on Nov. 26th). I also received a note from Daniel Case that required a response, but I was not able to respond on his Talk page as it is protected and I could not gain access to it. I did respond on mine, as you saw it. Thanks again for your help and any other suggestions you might have are gratefully appreciated.Miroslav Tadic (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Miroslav. I can't see any edit you've made which requests a username change (for the record the venue for doing so is at WP:CHU/S), but I think that changing your username would actually be counter-productive. We'd really prefer to know that it is you, the article subject, editing the article! As such your username is fine provided you don't make any edits to the article or its talk page for now, but instead submit verification to Wikimedia by emailing info-en@wikimedia.org. You can then keep your username and other editors will know for sure who they're talking to :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on AfD closure[edit]

So, now that you're a admin, here's your first hands-on experience in giving an admin opinion. Face-smile.svg Do you agree with my non-admin keep closure of this AfD? On first glance, this looks very uncontentious, but the nom seems very determined to get the article deleted. Davey2010 had closed this, but it was reverted after the nom came to Davey's talk page and said that he was going to take the closure to DRV. --Biblioworm 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha :) I do agree, though I'm not 100% certain I agree with the consensus because I think the nom makes good arguments, it's fairly obviously a consensus to keep. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm still expecting the "Your closure has been taken to DRV" notification at any minute. --Biblioworm 02:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Medicine navs[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Medicine navs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Political Party AfDs[edit]

Many of those articles have been around for years (and a good number tagged for notability for just as long, one from 2009 istr). If they've been around for so long without notable sources, then that's not my fault. They're not notable, full stop. That's self evident. I will continue to nominate each and every one of them. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

doktorb, if an article doesn't have sources that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't notable. I'm just asking for you to take a little more time to check whether they are indeed notable in the future because most of the articles you've nominated so far have been. Sam Walton (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I refute your opinion that they are notable. They have not achieved anything, the sources largely just prove that they exist(ed), not that they did anything. I will continue to nominate them, and others, as I see fit. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Lucia![edit]

Thank you W.carter, hope you have a good day too :) Sam Walton (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Help on All About That Bass[edit]

Please can you keep an eye on this page. I have left a message on the article's talk page as there is an IP adding and removing content with no sources and explanations. - Lips Are Movin (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lips Are Movin, there doesn't seem to be enough activity to warrant protecting or blocking so I'm not going to do anything for now. If the same IP keeps being disruptive, leave them talk page warnings and report them to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:ANEW/WP:AIV). If multiple IPs or new users are vandalising or being disruptive, please report the page to WP:RFPP for protection. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Will do. Thanks so much -Lips Are Movin (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Early Merry Christmas![edit]

~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Technical 13, will it update what I'm using automatically to the new version or do I need to do anything? Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You seems to be using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js which seems to be a much more complex script, I haven't looked through the script yet (wasn't aware it existed), but I wouldn't suggest you change anything at this time. I'll have to get in touch with Mr.Z-man and see if we can collaborate to merge the two scripts or add some of the new features to his. Thanks for your reply, I learned something from it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops, so I am. I assumed you were messaging people who used the script and thus didn't notice it was a different one! Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oseltamivir[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oseltamivir. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA discussion[edit]

Thanks for stepping in. Now I can kick off my shoes and enjoy my Christmas! BencherliteTalk 12:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there to be no discussion acknowledgment of the opposition to Crisco 1992's appointment as a TFA coordinator regarding his other positions scheduling content on the Main Page? Imzadi 1979  00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Sorry for not addressing this directly in my close message, but when I referred to further discussion on the structure of TFA this is one of the aspects I had in mind. If you think that a discussion regarding whether an editor should be able to coordinate more than one main page section is worth having then by all means go ahead. Sam Walton (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

Thanks and a question[edit]

Hello Sam,

Thank you for your recent kind decision to keep the Reliability theory of aging and longevity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and_longevity As you well know, this article was nominated for deletion by Randykitty, and there was a unanimous vote by all 6 experts to keep this article.

I have noticed that Randykitty also demonstrated a poor judgement on other occasions as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L._Stephen_Coles In this discussion Ollie231213 found comments by Randykitty to be an insult and uninformed, while Blacksun1942 described them as hyperbolic and quite defamatory. I agree with them, and believe that Randykitty activities are both arrogant and ignorant, and they do more harm to Wikipedia.

I wonder whether there is any way to ban Randykitty to edit articles for the topics (aging and longevity studies) where he is ignorant? Please advise. Thank you! -- Biodemographer (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)