User talk:Mark Miller

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Council

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)

LOL! I agree with all your points except I dont think its mainly the POV pushers that get hyper paranoid about proposed changes. Often they really are SPAs. Its more those who are sincerely here to build an encyclopedia. I noticed you about our Occupy articles earlier this year, did you attend many of the GAs? At least here in London, the atmosphere was brilliant for the first couple of months, but then various forms of paranoia seemed to take hold. I'd sometimes sit with the facilitators after the meetings, and they'd talk about the hurtful criticism and bitching they'd often receive from fellow occupiers. From what I can tell it seemed motivated by jealously / irrational fear of the very slight extra power the facilitators had. Its probably a similar psychology to why editors have got increasingly hostile to those seeking power as admins, and to any changes that might change the existing power structure. Adam Curtis's All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is freely available to watch on google and is excellent if you're interested in this sort of stuff... FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd love it if that happened, as it would be like one of the world's most famous Randian's converting away from Libertarianism, lol. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination)

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:

this is a stale, incorrectly formatted AfD. Some G6: General Housekeeping should be done in the case of further AfDs.

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)

That looks like it needs to go. It's from January! It gained no replies at all and is more than stale. Let me see is an Admin will deal with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was the talk page that was what I tagged. If I had known that I probably wouldn't have tagged it in the first place. Let's keep it for historical reference then. My apologies, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

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)

Olympics DRN

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)

I have now done so and explained my reasons at the DRN and in the edit summary. It was surprisingly positively received, but it has been requested that you should choose the temporary version. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and essential assistance. I will certainly be taking a long week away from that article, hopefully everything will be stable by the next time I check it. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I also thank your efforts, this 'resolution' has come as something of a surprise to me since only yesterday I highlighted a fundamental difference of opinion between editors regarding the inclusion of the rules and was being attacked for being uncooperative. Moreover the text has been forced through without expicit consent by one of the authors. Neither have I seen showmwbeef's view on the latest wording which he seemed to be against. If amadscientist has made the decision and has the authority to close the dispute then this makes it closed, but otherwise I'm afraid I must ask this to go to the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DR/N is not the end of collaboration. However, all editors did indeed express agreement to the section being used over the old text. Wording and other details were and should still be worked out on the tlakpage. Be aware, you yourself agreed to use the prose:"My preference would be for the version to remain until we have reached a decision." and User:Showmebeef actually agreed to the draft version I proposed with exceptions, all that were addressed, even the "home advantage" issue, just that that one had to be something they needed to accept or at the very least understand that it was demonstrated as relevant enough for inclusion. They left a lengthy post and I attempted to adress everything. I did not need to wait for agreement on each version when the discussion showed what their concerns were and the one issue that was indeed included was not enough to keep a resolution back. They had agreed to all of the volunteers proposed text earlier but one. Should you feel inclined to use mediation be sure and remember you did accept this proposal.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AMadscientist, just to be clear I said this.

"My preference would be for the version [by this I meant the published one on the main page] to remain until we have reached a decision. However, if you must change it I would suggest changing it to a version at least intermediate between our views such as Madscientists original for now. Perhaps we could leave him to decide on which temporary version is intermediate?"

I clarified here, and showmebeefs view is expressed here alongside your original. Sorry for any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no confusion. You made it clear that I as the volunteer could decide what the "intermediate" version was. I decided that the version that was boldly added in the true spirit of BRD was the best intermediate version as it took into account the most legitimate issues raised and upset the least amount of editors. Not everyone got what they wanted.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That is fair enough, I trusted you to choose a temporary version intermediate between our views in the interests of compromise. I will personally stand by what I said, but please quote in full in the case of mediation. Also that was just my view, I cannot vouch for Showmebeef at all. I know he only agreed to the first version subject to change, he is as unhappy as I am with how this has been rushed through, and he could have been given time to respond. --Andromedean (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On you own talkpage, Show has stated support for this version for now and also for the discussion to go back to the article talkpage. It was their concerns that were addressed last over legitimate issues that they requested be looked into before agreeing with the prose. Only one issue was not decided in favor of their opinion. My goodness....I am now seeing why this dispute has dragged on so long. I would not recommend Mediation. I am not entirely sure you have a true basis for a filing there yet. This is your choice of course, but as the DR/N volunteer, my recommendation was to kick back the discussion of wording to the talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

amadscientist It is most unlikely I would have continued to persist, without the support of at least one of the four involved parties, or indeed any rational reason to discontinue it. see showmybeefs talk page, he writes Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Andromedean (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Now could you inform me precisely where you have seen this 'support' on my talk page? I have confirmed with showmebeef on his talk page that we are very much against this second version before posting here. However, I always assumed the talk page was going to be the next venue anyway.--Andromedean (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist In view that two out of the four participants didn't support the version eventually pushed through by 88.*, could you please amend the DRN to indicate consensus was not reached as this title is misleading people in exactly the same way. I would also be appreciative if you could remind the remaining participants to discuss the wording as per your suggestions rather than try and remove the article.

Showmebeef has requested your first version to be used as a basis for further discussion, I agreed with this and so did 88.* at the time, 75% support. If this is used then the consensus claim would have greater strength. Thank you --Andromedean (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I post here, unless you respond. However, the (lack of) response from you has been very disappointing, as as been the attempts to remove the article without discussion on the talk page which has now been hidden in an attempt to exclude others. may I point out these guidelines

When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

So much for behaviour and guidelines. We can't expect others to treat guidelines seriously unless we all do. I will point these out on the talk page, however if the talk page is hidden again this will constitute proof of vandalism and I will expect administrators to support me in action action the offenders.--Andromedean (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump

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)

I simply did not believe this was policy related so did not use Village Pump proposals per the guidelines posted there. But if you think that is the better location it can be moved. I have no problem with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That is what I would recommend, and that is where the last one was. Apteva (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to make the move, please feel free or I can move it in a bit. I have some housecleaning tasks to accomplish elswhere first!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It can certainly wait until you have time. Apteva (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DR N

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)

Actually I thought I was clear that the talkpage was best for now and that the BLP noticeboard would be used only if a consensus could not be formed. As it satnds there are two editors telling you that 2012 IS the present and you have yet to explain why an open source encyclopeida would publish "2012 to present" when it is the present. In other words...since we can edit the page all the time, why jump the gun 21/2 months early. Just wait until 2013 and then add it. It is pretty simple to me and is possible the template needs updating--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for your comments at ANI and on my talk. ChemTerm (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48

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)

DRN

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)

Sad news: ANI of Andromedean

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)

Apparently such accusations are considered acceptable, and as I mentioned above: as long as that is the case I don't belong here. Hope you enjoy it more than I do, and that that'll continue as you are a fantastic editor. Good bye. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fortune Cookie

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

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)

• Hmm. I think the question is verbose ("In regards to user conduct issues and the use of the block tool, many admin feel inclined to block and some inclined not to block"--that's obvious) and leading ("why you would consider not blocking as a better choice"), and the conclusion you drew from WK's answer is incorrect. You're putting WK in a terrible spot: he can't say (since it's his RfA) that you're wrong or misleading in your interpretation of his answer, though you clearly are. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just a quick note that I don't actually care too much about questions at all on RfA, it's not a criteria I use to judge a candidate. I do watch their comments throughout the RfA in case they don't handle the RfA well, but since it's an open book exam, I don't put much stock in the answers. What I do is review between hundreds and thousands of edits they've made in the months (sometimes years) leading up to the RfA. I get a pretty good idea of the candidate, without caring about what they say in the RfA process. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

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)

The way you flipped out on Writ Keeper for basically trying to apologize to you was uncalled-for. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

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)

Error on Writ Keeper?

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)

Thanks

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)

A request

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)

Last week Australia's leading research agency in relation to the matter under discussion - the Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales - released its latest findings. Refer HIV cases in Australia is on the rise http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". Not only is HIV/Aids a tragedy for the people in involved, there are large society costs also involved. Refer HIV research gets $13m boost http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/10/22/hiv-research-gets-13m-boost/87469 Jim Wallace's concern is again validated by this scientific research.

Interestingly the second citation supporting Jim Wallace mentioning the need for 'compassion and objectivity' (also deleted ) http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well".

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)

Without participation there is little a DR/N filing will do. Try asking athid opinion and perhaps someone may be able to bring all parties together to discuss this in a less regulated manner. DR/N is for content disputes where participation requires some minimum participation from involved or uninvolved participants to form a consensus. There is really no one to do that here. However other venues exist and DR/N explain the best route. I'll take a look.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have requested your advice previously. Thank you for your suggestions. The Dispute resolution noticeboard re ACL has concluded. However editor Grotekennis, ignores Wiki P&Gs, editor comments, editor consensus, Reliable Source Noticeboard consensus and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard consensus and does what he wants to do. The summary of the finding of the Dispute resolution noticeboard presented by ΛΧΣ21 and supported by all the editors who participated is, "all of the sources that have been added to the article and do not talk about the ACL should be removed and the content it was supposedly supported, removed too" THE GROTEKENNIS SOURCES currently [30] to [34] PROVIDED FOR THE PARAGRAPH DO NOT TALK ABOUT ACL.. The 'volunteer' (who Grotekennis mentioned as justifying his edits) specifically said, "the sources need to mention ACL or its affiliates related to the topic being discussed. Wikipedias guidelines on sources are very clear on this point". THE GROTEKENNIS SOURCES DO NOT MENTION ACL OR ITS AFFILIATES.

Grotekennis is determined to get his way and in so doing undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I would again appreciate your advice. Sam56mas (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have raised, what I believe is, a very important issue. I would appreciate your response. Sam56mas (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Today, I added some comments at Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#The_corruption_of_Wikipedia - might firstly see how that works out Sam56mas (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Narrative inquiry

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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

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)

Comment at RfA

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A DR Request closed by you

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. _morelMW^illiam 14:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, Mark Miller!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)	A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> 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)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese

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

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. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. 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)

Please comment on Talk:James Earl Jones

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)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

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)

GOCE November drive wrap-up

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)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for that minor, but necessary, spelling correction. Belchfire-TALK 10:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

BCA DRN

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)

It is true that we do not need the kitchen sink, but I asked the editor to expalin the case further. They had concerns about the character limit and I told them they could go past the limit if they needed.

Hasteur, I really do not think your use of the term "pleading" is appropriate. As a volunteer I simply asked the editor to further explain the dipute instead of using labels as that did not explain the conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is truly your viewpoint please explain how [1] could be anything but pleading. At the time you posted, there was some content (in fact, about the level I would prefer). Your go ahead enabled him to start posting all sorts of stuff that we just didn't need. As evidenced, great paragraphs that are copy pasted to the DRN makes for nothing but wasted time. Hasteur (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you truly do not understand the difference between a plea and simply expaining why an editor on the DR/N went over the character limit at the request of a volunteer than I suggest stepping back from this filing. This is an informal process. I have asked filing editors to explain further and the character limit is not a Wikipedia Brightline rule like 3RR.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply at my talk page

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 09:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC).

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV removed & edit approved

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DRN

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)

Yes, as a regular volunteer there I understand that very much, but...as the dispute was over the reliability of sources and how to summarize them....it was less a content dispute and more of a source dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

I really think you deserved the recognition for all your hard work. The Rome articles have improved drasticly where you are involved!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joan Crawford

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)

GOCE mid-December newsletter

End of Year Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. 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. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

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.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Deftones

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. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Connecitcut shooting

Why did you close my post? I was hoping for commonsense on that article. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It was simply an off topic comment and not appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It was 'on-topic' concerning the article balance, as it expands. As for not appropiate? that's a personal observation. Anways, just wanted to make it clear, I'm not a troll. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good for you...I never said you were, but it was innappropriate and I stand by collapsing it. You can feel better knowing that another editor has unhatted it and you comments are now viewable by all. We call that "grave dancing".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I recent that comment, sir. However, it's your opinon & (of course) your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted and still not convinced of your intentions.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RE:Aloha! I need your help!

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)

The best sources of genealogy of Kamehameha siblings are Kamakau's Ruling chiefs of Hawaii and Abraham Fornander's Account of the Polynesian Race. Basically, he had one full blood brother Keliʻimaikaʻi and his father other children who were his half siblings Kalokuokamaile, Kalaʻimamahu, Kaweloʻokalani, Kekuiapoiwa Liliha, Kiʻilaweau and Kaleiwohi and from his mother's other marriage was a half-sister named Piʻipiʻi Kalanikaulihiwakama. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah all those names are family members of Moana, great-grandmother of King Lunalilo. See this. Moana married three times and had many children, but she was not daughter of Keoua or Kekuiapoiwa. Her parents were Kauhi-a-Haki (aka Kauhiapi'iao) and Ilikiamoana, who was the daughter of Moana (kane), the son of King Keakealanikane of Hawaii who ruled in the 16th century. Ilikiamoana's is probably Iliki-a-Moana (Iliki of Moana, this being the name of her father). Hawaiian name are unisexual, so there is the female Moana-a-Kauhi and the male Moana, who was her grandmother. This speaks of Moana kane. I think his descendants were the Moana family that Kamakau was talking about. Moana's genealogy are here, her mother's line and her father's line. She and her grandfather were distant cousins of Kamehameha and his parents. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I learned more in the process. Can I ask what are planning to do with this information?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious

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)

Do it again, please

Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Manual_archiving_again Drmies (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been off the project all day with a few minutes just a while ago. I will look at it later tonight after i have had dinner and time to cool off from another situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 DoneI wanted to wait until after midnight eastern standard time.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A reply from another editor

A bit of WP:AGF would likely go a long way.

Your edit was to me less-than-coherent, and seemed to not understand the section. And my edit summary at least partially indicated that, as it seemed by your edit that you were unaware that iterative was a word, and seemed to think it meant "interactive".

All that said, I welcome civil/agf discussion on this (per WP:BRD, of course). If you'd like to start a thread at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? - jc37 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take your own advice and assume good faith as well. Frankly I don't believe you, since you edit warred and made no effort to discuss on the talk page and made no attempt to correct mistakes just blanket reverted. I don't generally get these accusations of "less-than-coherent, and seemed to not understand the section" and feel you are tryping words with no meaning just making bad excuses to cover your ass. I don't discuss after the fact with this type of shit. And yes, that was shit.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I find your apparent aggression and adversarial-ness surprising over a single revert.

I'll merely repeat the offer for civil discussion at WT:BRD. - jc37 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It was certainly aggressive and adversarial, for sure and I also know you are more than capable of understanding why. I also believe it was your intent to make it so. I find your "offer for civil discussion at WT:BRD" to be disingenuous since you are really just demanding I start a discussion. If the offer were real, you would have already begun a civil discussion and left it to me to continue it in a similar manner. I know you are aware that removing comments from your userpage is usually seen as uncivil, so it seems this is the reaction you are looking for. I wont edit war or revert a revert on BRD. I do intend to discuss this, but at the moment see nothing to discuss with you as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"It was certainly aggressive and adversarial, for sure and I also know you are more than capable of understanding why." - No, actually. Prior to your lengthy comment below, to be blunt, to me your responses appeared to be simply an editor throwing a tantrum because they were reverted. (I look at how you suggest my edit summary doesn't make sense, but then you identify your changing of iterative in the very next sentence. You clearly understood something.) And in looking over your comments below, I'm not yet dissuaded of that, but I'm open to being being proven mistaken.

Dennis appears to think there is more to this than meets the eye. And even if he didn't, anyone who's ever interacted with me knows I welcome civil, productive, constructive discussion. I'm just seeing assumptions of bad faith here. I even was polite and offered to let you start and frame the discussion, and somehow that indicates I have some heinous motives?

Anyway, so much for that. I still offer you the opportunity for open discussion at WT:BRD, to better explain what you think I may be not understanding.

But needless to say, I am disinterested in further seeming animosity or accusations. - jc37 03:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Jc said he is open to a mediated discussion, and I bet Amadscientist is as well. Lets just give it a day, ponder a bit, and if you like, I will be happy to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem should that be needed. But there are other options I feel need to be attempted first. Such as discussing the original contribution with the original contributer. There were real reasons to adapt that contribution to remove some redundant wording and I even missed the fact that there is a claim being made that being warned about 3RR requires you not edit the content at all, which is simply not accurate. A warning simply means you are at the limit for reverts but have not crossed the brightline and is not an excuse to use a warning to attempt to stop editing all together. An editor that has reached their revert limit may still make contructive adaptations that do not revert the content but add to it.

I believe that JC37 made a blanket revert, but have not made any further edits to the page myself. There is no dispute needing mediation at the moment but believe there may be eventually. While I want to believe that a contructive discussion can take place, I also feel JC37 has not made enough GF attempts to do that. I am disturbed at the moment. But I'll get over it soon enough and will not be holding a grudge. A fresh start is still a possibilty, even without informal mediation. But, I thank you, and ask for a raincheck for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have complete faith that Jc37 will work with you at the right time, and encourage you to include him early and often. We are all on the same team, after all. If you both decide you just need an informal opinion or anything else, just ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hebron School, Ooty - DRN

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)

Guess I am a bit late, but I accept your suggestions. Good close by the way. I will try to discuss with the editor in the article talk page and hopefully get cooperation. Suraj T 06:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN

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)

Thanks again! Location (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry for the drama.

Bearian (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a new message!

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN/I

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)

Request for Feedback

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)

RfC effectiveness

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)

I assume you actually mean RFA?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. RFA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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)

Good wishes

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)

I don't think you did anything wrong....just got really confused that you were involved with the refinements and then just reverted. But happy Holidays....and thanks for the fish. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Koch brothers

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)

Made me smile; well done

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)

LOL! Thanks! I really should get a lamp for this desk since the last one went out last year!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Breast cancer awareness

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)

Dropped it off as I ran by! LOL! (Had to, your argument was to well articulated) --Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WER Userbox

Thanks for the new/old Userbox. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI (your message on User talk:CaffeineCyclist 22:39, 19 December 2012)

[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)

Io, belatedly

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)

I actually understand that well. I try to keep my major interests seperate from my Wikipedia activity. Don't always succeed...but I try!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you!

		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)

If you don't go to bed Santa will NOT come down the chimney!!!!! ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes

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)

Early greetings for the new year

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) Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

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)

Thank you Cynwolfe. You are right. We can still disagree and not get personal. I have come to have great respect for your contributions and hope that I always temper my conserns with the knowledge that you have abilities in the areas that benifit articles of ancient Greece and Rome!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

re:editor retention

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)

Absolutely...as I said...it is a dance. I will discontinue further responses per your request as well as just getting past it and moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

TYVM Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Forward is a good direction. But dont forget to look in your rearview mirror every once in a while. :`) ```Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Like--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a little weird.

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)

I was concerned seeing that as well, though at least so far, the reviews don't seem terrible. They aren't great, but for someone doing a first review I've seen worse. I'll keep an eye out in case something off happens. Wizardman 02:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Look guys, I completely understand your discontent when you see a newcomer review an article on which you all worked too hard on. But I created this account to review GA articles because I think it's fun and also very important for wikipedia. I'll have to start somewhere right, and there's always a first time. So please just trust me on this and I'll try to the best and broadest review I can. :)--WeirdWoman123 (talk) 06:01, 31 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)

I never really pointed a finger at you. Anyways, I have thoroughly read and understood the review process and criteria.--WeirdWoman123 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It actually makes sense when you put it that way. You have our full support.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much :). And I'm not trying to mock you WonderBoy1998, but if I really was a fangirl trying to pass both the articles because I like the characters, don't you think I would have passed them right-away without pointing out places for improvements?--WeirdWoman123 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have very little involvement in the article, but....I used to have the moniker of the biggest Wonder Woman fan. Gave that up ages ago.......but my friends still say it! LOL! I'll pass that on to Wonderboy. =) --;;Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I guess it was for me. Thanks Amadscientist! :D--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:21, 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!]

Sorry for talkpage-ghosting, but I happened to come across this discussion and decided to look into it. A few things: the GA review looks a bit sus - for example, every time Amadscientist is insistant on something (e.g. the infobox image), and WonderBoy1998 doesn't want to do it, WeirdWoman123 makes an executive decision and says the article is fine as it is. Also, a glance at the article itself shows something that really isn't ready for GA, which to me suggests some sort of foul play. However, of course this is just speculation. I took the time to analyse the contributions made by both users ([4] and [5], and the results have proved very interesting. WeirdWoman123's first edits were at 6:01 on December 30th. Assuming that, at least to begin with, WonderBoy1998 would spend a bit of time going from one persona to another, the times should never cross over. I figure that by the 31st, a better system had been devised to allow the user to hop from one account to the other swiftly, or even to be logged into them simultaneously.

• (30th) WonderBoy1998 - 04:53 to 05:21
• (30th) WeirdWoman123 - 06:01 to 06:54
• (30th) WonderBoy1998 - 07:09 to 07:27
• (30th) WeirdWoman123 - 07:38 to 08:20
• (30th) WonderBoy1998 - 08:26 to 10:19
• (30th) WeirdWoman123 - 10:26
• (30th) WonderBoy1998 - 10:30 to 17:57
• (31st) WeirdWoman123 - 06:01 to 06:09
• (31st) WonderBoy1998 - 06:12
• (31st) WeirdWoman123 - 06:17 to 06:19
• 06:21 is the first time they edit within the same minute, so I'll end my analyses of the times there. I suspect, if this is true, Femme Fatale Tour was GA-reviewed in order to (for lack of a better phrase), throw us off the scent.

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)

If you look at the history of this talkpage you will see further evidence that the user did indeed use a sockpuppet. It was handed over to an admin late last night and is being handled. Thanks to all who kept up with the situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And User:Coin945 and TheOriginalSoni, you are welcome to haunt my talkpage at any time of course.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I felt like I was inside my very own Agatha Christie novel there for a second, and boy was it marvelous... :P--Coin945 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion, but afterwards I thought (as you have contributed to it) you might wish it to remain. If you want I guess it could be simply archived, but I tend to think for such blatant abuses it is best to simply delete it and move on. Feel free to move the tag. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I have no objection to it being speedied! Thanks Aircorn. Most of my contributions were an attempt to see what was going on. I saw something fishy the minute the review was created.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 23:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bera pic

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Your New Editor barnstar is brilliant and I LOVE IT! Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New Year's Greetings

Hi there my friend! May the new year bring you health, wealth, and many happy Wikipedia editing experiences! Your friend, Gandy

Thanks Gandy! Hope you have a great new year! Be safe and well!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Brains Work Better barnstar

		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)

Thank you!

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)

I fear you may be right. I will be working on the artwork later today to improve the blanket and will change the coloring to something more neutral. Thanks for the imput!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Will your recent gender modification inspire your choice? ```Buster Seven Talk 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just stated in preferences that I am male....didn't switch from female. Having said that......the years of dressing as Frank N. Furter could be seen as somewhat female! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

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)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

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:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

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)

I have been looking for a project to help me learn more about editing on Wikipedia, nudge me into FA and other areas and do so in a way that would be fun and interesting. This is it! Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC

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)

Email

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)

Sorry about that. I updated my gender ID and it must have fallen off. Enabled.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank god this is not a few days ago....I joined a FB discussion group and woke up to 700 notifications from a discussion I started. Would hate to have to wade through all that to find an e-mail.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"I updated my gender ID and it must have fallen off." I want you think about the visual image that your comment created. :o Needless to say, but I won't be adjusting the gender settings here, as I don't want anything to fall off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing fell off so far. But the beard is in full now so.....--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

re: your recent edits at WER

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)

Oh.....LOL! I needed that about now! LOL! I have chosen a gender! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Old eyes...what can I say. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Chantoke's cause

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)

Oddly enough I just logged in to leave a couple of messages that I am a bit ill today myself. You should bring this up at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- JuneGloom Talk 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

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. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WER

Hey, why did you remove your response? The first two especially are spot on! Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was tad shocked by the criticism immediatly following the posting. I was unprepared for that to become a point - counter point discussion and actually believed it was a good idea to list three simple concerns we might have as either new editors or from looking back at the project form a distance.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I value your comments

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)

• Editor Amad. Please return your valued comments @ WER. The conversation doesnt make sense without them. And those of us that agree are left without them. As a struggling artist I recognize the tendancy to only notice and hear my critics and completely ignore the dozens of supporters that are also "speaking". Ignore the critics. You won't be able to please them anyway. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First let me say thank you to both of you, especially editor 64.40.57.53 (although Buster also hit me pretty much where I live as a struggling artist). I appreciate the kind words and the time you took to write them. The issue I have is that the WER talkpage has become little more than a battle ground these days with editors criticising each other (something I am as guilty of) and I was not prepared to see a request for comment on the editor retention project over what we percieved as issue be immediatly disagreed with. What is the point of discussing the issues on that talkpage, of all places if it is just an another place to argue. I really liked this discussion and question as well as the thread where a new editor was invited to discuss there immediate reactions to their first article. Probably because I related to that editor having created a very similar article myself and experiance the very same issues they did (as well as an editor attempting to change the spelling of theatre to threater with every use on the page). Obviously I am too angry to return at the moment. I use the WER project to find some peace away from arguments and work on the other side of the coin at Wikipedia. A side so heavy it is almost always flipped over, only showing the bitter side of the encyclopedia. If you feel my comments are important to the discussion I give both of you permission (whoever sees this first) to return the comments. Link this discussion in the edit summary so that you are not reverted. I need to stay away a bit, calm down and finish my GA review and BLP work before it drags out too long.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

((Sidebar));...be immediately disagreed with. Like you, I hate it when some nay-sayer gets the first word...before any positive supportive brainstroming and brain-sharing can take place. I see it all the time, all over the place: an idea is presented and before it can be given any water and fertilizer, it gets shot down as foolish or silly or unworkable. And most times the discussion turns into a battle of polarized viewpoints and for the millionth time, the original idea is lost in the shuffle and interested editors wander off to do better things. In RL brainstorming, "That won't work" comments are dis-allowed and rejected as contrary to the flow of ideas. Too bad it doesnt happen here. Enjoy your Peace. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Eventually I will return to WER and the talkpage, but right now I need to get back to content. All that happens is my pie chart starts showing more green than coral. LOL![6]. I like to keep that even or, better yet...increase the content portion more. I actually enjoy the content creation and need to get back to learning the ropes of Wikipedia content contributing.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I find working on content to be one of the more relaxing things I do on the project. Thanks again for all your comments around the project. I find them beneficial. You have my best wishes and understanding. 64.40.54.39 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

Hi, I quoted a post of yours at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lynette_Nusbacher. Insomesia (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion and Revert

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)

Thanks for replying so quickly. I figured it was something along those lines.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note

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)

As was stated by Jimbo Wales on the Paloma Faith talkpage. Accusations against the subject are a violation of BLP policy accross all spaces including talkpages and should be removed or hidden. Also, why all this attitude? You hardly appear disinterested. I apologise if this angers you but please refrain from making accusations about the figure of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Various editors have claimed that this Lynette has told them she doesn't want to be identified as this Ayreh or whatever. Yet they want to claim works written under the previous name. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't allow the subject to own the page, either directly nor via proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot accuse the subject of the article on the talkpage of any such thing just because you believe it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of what I "believe", it's asserted by supporters of the subject. Also note the ownership attempt by a user alleging to be the article's subject.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, I am sorry but that does not support your accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And I say it does. Not that it matters, as she's going to get her wish, as the preponderance of commentary seems to be adding up to "delete". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm watching this page for another reason for the record...but Bugs, Wikipedia doesn't accept the claims of people on talk pages as fact does it? How do we know that person definitely is who they claim to be? Is there any evidence other than their claims? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)