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)

WER Suggestions to new editors

Hi Amadscientist. Points 7 and 11 could be merged, as they're pretty much the same subject, if you're up to it?

• 7 - Do not retaliate or in anyway engage the other editor by YELLING. Avoid the written equivalent of "hand gestures".
• 11 - Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offered Administrative advice is to move on, and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day. The best and most frequently offered Buster7 advice is to go fishing.

Thanks for pointing that out!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No problemo, have a nice day! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

First TV broadcast of The Rocky Horror Picture Show

• I remember seeing the The Rocky Horror Picture Show on TV in 1994 and they said that it was the first broadcast on network TV and I was very surprised to see that the sponsor was the U.S. Army (which at that time still had the Don't ask, don't tell policy toward gays). I have recorded this event in my Rocky Horror Picture Show diary in which I have recorded each of the 13 times so far that I have seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show. However, I do not have the exact calendar date for this time I saw it as I do for the other times, only the year. It seems to me this is a very important event because it shows how much more liberal society had become such that it was possible to broadcast The Rocky Horror Picture Show on network TV. Of course this should have a reference, but I looked on Google and I couldn't find any references for it. If you could find a reference, that would be wonderful. Maybe if you have books about The Rocky Horror Picture Show it would be in one of those books, or maybe someone in the Rocky Horror Picture Show fan club could provide a reference. I'll write an appeal on the talk page of the article and see if someone can find a reference. Keraunos (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The information I provided with a different date was sourced to the official fan club.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the correct date was October 13, 1993. Thank you so much for finding this reference! Good work! Keraunos (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. No problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize you are a volunteer...

in more than one way. If you get a chance, could you take a look at:

• User_talk:Deicas#Your_post_is_extremely_confusing and
• User_talk:Deicas#How_do_you_view_your_role...

I confess I haven't been an active participant at DRN, and I'm well aware that Wikipedia creates unwritten conventions, some of which aren't obvious. However, from first principles, I would think that contributors should either be parties or facilitators, but not both. Deicas is acting as both, which would be problem enough, but his facilitator comments have been less than incisive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a fair amount on your plate at the moment, but Deicas is continuing to play facilitator, and making a hah of it, even after I and others have requested that s/he cease. Please address whether it is acceptable for a participant to also act as facilitator, in which case this concept is a joke and ought to be abandoned, or if it is improper for a participant to act as a facilitator. (I see nothing wrong with a participant offering proposals or compromises, but that's very different than wielding the bossy-stick, making pronouncements about consensus, and directing other contributors to move their on-topic posts to other sections.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me look at a couple of things.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope question regarding Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.23talk:Paul_Krugman

I call to your attention to my unanswered question, in the Paul Krugman RfC:, "Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION?".

What needs to be done to get this "SCOPE" question answered authoritatively? Deicas (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 5

The Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013

Project news summary Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Contact us have seen a major revamp. Page statistics were updated. Alerts are now available for discussions related to Help Project pages Many more Help Project pages now have the Article Feedback Tool (v5) enabled. GettingStarted is an experimental feature to guide new users with their first edits.

From the editor Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

unquestionable fact

I'm struggling with where to put this comment on the DRN page, so I'll try here, and see what you think.

You said:

First, lets remember a few unquestionable fact. This is a concept, not an actual coin. It would be a huge coin if it was.

Surely, and unquestionable fact should be...unquestionable. While there is no doubt the concept is important, there isn't much doubt that they are literally planning to mint a coin. Literally, and not in the metaphorical use of the word literal that seems to be the fashion these days. I guess your comment about being a big coin is a bit of a joke, but it makes me wonder if you are following the issue. No, it doesn't have to be a big coin. There was a time when the metal value of a coin had to match the numerical amount on the coin, but that isn't the case anymore. Are you under the impression that it is? (Which is too bad, as it would eliminate the chance for a gimmick.) And when you go on to say that This is political, economic theory, that simply states the President of the United States could fund the government . No, absolutely not. They aren't planning to fund anything. They are pretending to fund with a loophole that, if allowed, would mean they can ignore the debt ceiling. It does virtually nothing for funding. You are on the right track, that this is particularly about politics, moreso that seigniorage, but it isn't really much about economics, except that it might take a little knowledge of economics to understand that it has nothing to do with funding, and is pure politics. Krugman isn't weighing in because be is a economists, and is debating the economics of the issue, he is weighing in because he is a political partisan with a bully pulpit who is weighing in on the political aspects of the gimmick. Sorry, I'm sliding into a rant, but surely you know as a facilitator that you should start with unquestioned facts, and ease into the more controversial aspects. (I'm guessing it was your intent.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely there is great room to debate the subject itself. This is not the issue. Whether or not the coin can be made, or in what determining size that would be, it is still a concept, not an action that happened. What the issues are about are much simpler than what you are talking about. The subject of Krugman's comments has firm context and is notable, but consensus determines inclusion. Look, we simply do not make the assumptions of Krugman's "partisanship" The article should not be about painting the subject one way or another. We just summarize the published facts and in the subjects case we seem to have taken a less appealing route....closing the article altogether. Politics is not the issues. What is the issue is NPOV as respecting that this is a real life human being, not just some public figure that we can say anything we want about.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening statement trimmed, as requested

FYI, I know it is normally not appropriate to remove someone else's post, but given your goal of brevity in opening statements, I trimmed my opening as requested, and then removed your request, and responded here, rather than add to the clutter by adding my response to the section. Obviously, if you prefer to handle it differently, feel free to.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats never a problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman RfC-related entry at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment ...

I call your attention to my entry [9] at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to inquire if you are being disrutptive, you can ask any number of Admin what they think or just use the DR/N talkpage. Going to the RFC talkpage to ask if you are Wikilawyering is not the proper venue. Ask at AN/I or the DR/N talkpage if you wish further input.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN attention template

Hey mate...just letting you know that sort of thing is best to be substituted or put under a level 2 header, because when I clicked edit to reply to it, look where it ended up! :) Thanks for keeping up the good work :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to fix that. I just copied it from the DR/N notice and it may need further editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My first DR case

Amadscientist, thanks for posting that on my talk page, but before I take another case, I wanted to see if you can give me some feedback on how I did in my first case and if you have any suggestions on how to improve. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 03:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Psst. Psst. I think this may have fallen through the cracks...I would appreciate any feedback you may have...I'm a little leery of taking on another case until I get a little evaluation on how I did in the first one. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:48, 19 January 2013 (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) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		For your efforts of getting "Editor of the Week" off the drawing board and onto the pages of our first recepient. Well done.```Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Buster!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Krugman DRN

A bit of a rocky start, then settled down. I don't think we've seen the end of it forever, but perhaps for now. Nice work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my fault, not Deicas's

Hi Amadscientist, it was me and not Deicas who refactored the "No consensus" quote, as I explain and apologize for in the DRN thread, truly sorry! Zad68 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. The history was confusing when I looked and thought I had found the correct moment it was altered. I'll take your word for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick fix needed at DRN

Hi Amadscientist... A quick fix is needed near the bottom of WP:DRN. The template {{DRN archive bottom} after American Psycho is missing a second closing curly-brace and it's causing the new Emotional Freedom Techniques section not to show up. I'd fix it myself but I'm gun-shy now... Just FYI. The only reason why I'm pointing this out is that due to terrible luck, it's a DRN I will also probably be involved in. Cheers... Zad68 03:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I also appreciate the caution. One day someone thought they would go through and clean up the page of mark ups they thought were not helpful....it through the entire page out of whack for a few hours. Attempts to correct the corrections made it worse and we ended up having to simply return the page to the version before the corrections, loosing some posts thet had to be manually re-added one at a time. What a mess that day was!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba p again

Sorry but he seems bent on disruption and has started a thread on WP:ANI, I would be grateful if you could comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Closure of the Krugman DR

You know what's really cheap? To quickly get your "last word" in to an argument and then quickly close it so that the other person can't reply. And this is "mediation"? Sheesh.Volunteer Marek 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is your concern....the closure probably should have been made sooner. The so called "last word" was in response to your "silly" accusation which only shows your lack of respect for the process and Wikipedia in general. You edit warred and want the outcome "you want". As I said, you may tell the next mediator how silly DR/N is.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: May I remove your opt out header to combine with mine to create a unified "Opt Out" section? We both opt out on the grounds that we're only people who tried to help resolve the issue from the DRN thread. If you want to make the conversion, I'm ok with that too. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Royal genealogy

I think that lawsuits are all that is known about him. Charles Kanaina like his niece Kalama were a rather low ranking chiefs; Lunalilo derived his rank from his mother. He might have been a half brother or adoptive brother of Kanaina, but I think that is pretty much that is known about him.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So far that certainly is all I can find, but I have a couple of angles to find more information. At least the documents from these suits have provided a full name.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also in Hawaiian society, close relatives could regard siblings and even parents as strangers because of the hanai system. Kalakaua and Liliuokalani didn't treat their half-uncles William Luther Moehonua and Joel Hulu Mahoe as relatives.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this link [10]? It mentions a genealogy chart. If you are really interested you can contact the Hawaii State Archive or the Bishop Museum to maybe look at the original although from personal I think you have to go personally to Honolulu since most documents are not digitized and the staff rarely does research for people.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Moehonua and Mahoe were half-blood relatives not incidence of hanai relations. The child you are referring to was William Kaiheekai Taylor; his parent offered their second born, a girl, to the Bishops but by that point they had given up on raising a child and probably Pauahi wanted a boy not a girl. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Al Franken

Hey, don't want to be rude but can you check in on the Franken GA Review, I've added the references and waiting what needs to be improved, if any. Best, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not being rude. I'll check it out as soon as I can. There was a backlog at DR/N and a number of issues that added too much on my plate to get back to that immediately.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your DRN closere.

My primary concern there wasn't the Coat of arms of the State of Palestine article, it's the Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority article. The dispute is primarily over the Palestinian National Authority article, and what it's scope it. That's related to the AFD of the "State of Palestine" article, but weather to keep the State article, and the scope of the Authority article (which has covered the state sense 2011), are separate issues. If he won't discuss, and DRN won't be of any help, what am I supposed to do? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me look a little further, but we generally do not accept DR/N filings that have been taken to other venues regardless of the stated seperations. You clearly demonstrated the relevance between the two articles and that it is a part of this dispute, so the closing was accuarate. Generally this is just until the AFD closes and then the dispute can be refiled. I should add a note on the closing statement. However, I think there may be other routes more appropriate for this at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

_{There were seven seperate notifications. I have cleaned them up and reduced them to one.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)}

You've got mail!

Hello, Mark Miller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration template

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

Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Verifiability shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation

Igor,

In doing research / writing I came across this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Futurist_Manifesto

There have been copyrighted translations of the original that have run afowl, but if I simply get a reputable Italian art critic to translate from Italian to English can that be posted to Wikisource? If I'm not mistaken the source document is not the issue - it's the translation. What might be the possible issues given that some of the language will be the same? I know enough of the right people to get this done.

Thank You Very Much, haddon

As long as the original Italian manuscript is in the public domain you should be able to translate it yourself. The issue with an outside translation is that it may be difficult to demonstrate an original translation. I suggest asking another Wikipedin to translate the text.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU - will keep plugging away. Where / how would I find an Italian Wikipedin translator to work with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Start here, Wikipedia:Translation.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And here, [11]. User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Suggested Page Reads (and is far beyond my insight): "This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Pages are added to tracking categories through templates." Dhaddonpearson (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the page itself has information on it that is about the subject of translating a source.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will look into it, classes taking a bit of time at the moement, thanks again. Dhaddonpearson (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Could you please take a look at this article: BPA Worldwide I came upon it quite by accident as I frequently edit the BPA (chemical) page. I think it should be deleted but I don't know how to go about it. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that article in my opinion, it seems strictly promotional so a ran a text search on the first lines. It appears to be copyright material.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you suggest its deletion? Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The biggest concern is promotional language. Admin Darkwind believes the paraphrasing is their us of our article. I think the best thing to do right now is to check for verifiability. If you can locate at least on secondary, reliable source it may have some value. I would copy edit the article to make it less brocure. If it a large media company there should be some commentary in one of the main news companies.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are just too many reliable sources that I am finding. I am going to go aghead and make a bold edit to pretty much address as amny issues as I can and add all the references I think are relevant. Better to rescue this article and remove the puffrery and replace it with third party, sourced claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

• I was wondering, how many times have you seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show? You seem to be very knowledgeable about it. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I lost count around 500 so it could be between 575 to 625 times in a theatre. But that was decades ago.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Does The Rocky Horror Picture Show fan site have a record of the name of the person who has seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show the most times? If so, what is the name of that person, where do they live, and how many times have they seen it? Keraunos (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if an official count is kept, but Sal Piro used to be considered the record holder in the past. He is the fan club president.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

When you saw The Rocky Horror Picture Show approximately 600 times, what city or cities were you living in? How old were you when you saw it for the first time? Keraunos (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I first saw The Rocky Horror Picture Show at Merced Cinema in 1978. Went there until it closed and then came back at the Merced Theatre for many years. I also used to go to the Tiffany Theater and visited a few other theatres regularly when we traveled around. At one time it played in so many places you could visit up and down the state with different groups of fans.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI HA

Hello,

This is to tell you that all articles at the Holding Area are already selected, and no further Supports are required for them. Please do not add any more Supports there.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To this effect, I had removed your supports from there, which created a row (See my talk page, and do tell me if you have the same concerns as NA) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Nice work on the TAFI logo. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. The logo looks very nice. I'm pleased with how the project is finally taking off. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI Holding area

Just a note, another editor recently removed your comments at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Holding area. Here is the diff page: [12]. While it's unnecessary to !vote in the holding area, I feel it is prudent to notify you about this matter. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Mad. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I know that you have contributed in the musical theatre area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress on WP:Snuggle and work log

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice edit

Here, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Muppets

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Muppets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical powers of popes.

Hi Amadscientist, as a member of the WikiProject Catholicism could you please advise me on an article I am researching. I am expanding the “historical” section in the article Royal Succession Bills and Acts. The theme of this new section is anti-Catholic-popery legislations, brought about in the reign of Henry VIII, then later monarchs, culminating in the current legislation and House of Commons/Lords debates about the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012. I am seeking relevant comparisons between the military and political influences of popes and English / UK monarchs during historical times, and when these influences ended.

Can you tell me, advise me of an interested Editor, or direct me to a WP or on-line source, which (respectfully) define historical popes as political &/or military authorities, in comparison with corresponding monarchs? I am especially interested in dates and legislation, influential in the rise, peak and decline of such popes. (Please reply here, or Talk:Royal Succession Bills and Acts). Thanks Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Revising the nominations process at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

I'm seeking wider input on a proposed redesign of the nomination process over at TAFI. The current method could benefit from some streamlining and usability tweaks. If you feel so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Catperson 12

Hi, Mad! I noticed your reach out message at his page, and I wanted to let you know that I took him back to ANI again for the same old crap. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

EOTW

When you get a chance, can you update the sidebar graphic thing for User:Diiscool? Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review?

Hey Amadscientist, I was wondering if you could take a few minutes to check this peer review I started. I'm trying to get the article up to GA status, but there doesn't seem to be a lost of help out there. Thanks for your time, and sorry about the "new message" banner this activated; that thing always worries me, thinking "what'd I do this time?" Best, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a quick review.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there MadSci. Could you give me a hand at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article? I have written up a split for the Volume and extent section. It's on the talk page (#20.1) - it's all ready to go but I don't know how to do the actual splitting work. If it is a long and involved process I would expect that it would not be something you'd be interested in, but if it takes only a few minutes, perhaps you'd be willing? Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let me take a look.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Amadscientist. Based on the previous discussion I tagged one more section for split. Could you please take look at it and the discussion? By my understanding this is the last big section needing to be split-off. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Otto Plath Pictures

I have been working on the page Otto Plath for a while, and right now I am focusing on adding some pictures. On the talk page of the article I have provided links to two pictures of Otto which I think would add to the quality of the article, however, I am unfortunately inexperienced with images on Wikipedia. So, I would be greatly appreciative if I could get some assistance in the process of properly uploading these pictures so I can easily work with them. Thanks --Philpill691 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

• And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

	Teahouse Host Badge
	Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Health Effects section against talk page, without consensus

Per talk "I have tagged the "Health effects" section as, from what I'm reading, this will turn out to be a very large section/story. These effects are only beginning to be reported. But, I mean for the split to happen in keeping with Wiki guidelines and in communication with other editors. And just like with the "ecological" split, the remaining section should remain large (roughly the size it is now) even after the split, in relation to its importance."

You split the section off leaving a blank section, without any contact with other editors and in direct conflict of this talk page entry. Please put it back - removing the "health effects" from the article of the largest oil spill in US history is certainly "mad". petrarchan47tc 20:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a bold edit but communicated with editors first. The tags were agreed on and comments there seem to have stated as much on the thread I created on the talkpage about my work. I am not entirely sure if I am following your post but if I am, you are concerned because you believe I was not communicating with other editors and that I left the sections blank, but you don't mention the fact that, again, I communitcated on the tlakpage and mentioned I would return later today to add summaries. Actually one section was already blank and had a tag that I just copied for the moment on the other sections. Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I assure you that isn't the case here. Yes, it is the largest oil spill in U.S. history and there are several articles that have been split off from the main article which, in its current state is still too large. We should be used to seeing splits and see this as a good thing as information has grown to such an amount that containment issues need to begin. How about we make a second template to place under the main infobox of all of the related articles: "This is part of a series of articles on Deepwater Horizon oil spill?.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN discussion about Huey P. Newton

The other editor, Apostle12 has commented on the articles talk page again, suggesting that marking the dispute as resolved is premature. reopen? start new discussion? please advise. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi. You've been selected at random from WP:FRS, where you are listed as an editor willing to help with RfCs related to biographical articles. If you have time, could you provide your input to an RfC here involving issues of libel and defmation in relation to author Jared Diamond. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

About TAFI

Hello,

I think that things are going nowhere for the TAFI, as far as the main page is concerned. In my opinion, the most viable way to solve this situation is to simply start an RFC on the main page talk to finalize all the little details (Where do we put it, How many lines, How do we balance it, etc etc). Link this rfc from CENT and the watchlist, and village pump, and jimbo's talk page. Get others to comment on it, and have a decision taken. This seems to be the best and in this case, possibly the only way, to actually implement it on the main page anytime soon. What do you think?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What I truly believe is that the editors that are holding it up on the main page discussion should allow what consensus has already agreed on and not filibuster to stop what the general community has already agreed on, but I also believe that an RFC to address specific concerns should not be a hold up of implementation. Before we take the step of an RFC we need to define, by that editors' own terms, what the exact disputes are, what the full concerns are and how they feel it should best be addressed, see where we all agree and how to move forward in a manner that the disputing editors would agree to participate in. An RFC may not be the best way to go as it means a great length of time that I am not entirely sure is necessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting over a cold

Should be back sometime this week.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes. We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected. There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date. The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics. We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia. The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Teahouse

Hi Amadscientist, it's nice to see you using your experience to answer questions at the Teahouse, the new people need you! I just wanted to remind you to greet people when you start a discussion, and be extra friendly and patient. Many people are overwhelmed by their early Wikipedia experience and may come to us already a little agitated and confused. It's also helpful if you explain a policy rather than linking to it (if at all possible). Again, thanks for your work, heather walls (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Answering a question is not starting a discussion, asking one is. I am not going to address the issue you raise about being "extra friendly and patient" as I see nothing I have said or done that can be seen as going against that goal, but if someone begins their question by making an accusation and name calling, being extra friendly isn't going to help.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the major reasons for the Teahouse to exist is based on the premise that being extra friendly (in comparison to Wikipedia standards) is exactly what will help. You are welcome to disagree, but that is what hosts agree to when upholding the tenets of the Teahouse. To address your answers specifically, you say "the article is not formatted correctly"..."That is not allowed" etc., with a general tendency to mention all the things someone cannot or shouldn't do rather than explaining best practices. New users are already being bombarded with things they aren't supposed to do and that they weren't aware of to begin with, the Teahouse is one of many efforts working to change that culture. I appreciate your time, heather walls (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(Also, I love your self portrait!)

Please remember that the level of what some editors see as "extra nice" may not be to the same level as others. Thanks for the compliment about the portrait. I appreciate the kind words. Could you provide the Teahouse guidelines for me to review?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally get that it's all quite subjective which is why I let people know my take on the temperature of things now and then. Some Teahouse host guidelines are here, and here is a link to some of the original research gathered on Meta. Thank you for taking the time to review it a little! :) heather walls (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How do I move a page now that consensus has been achieved

Thank you for your detailed replies on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How do I move a page now that consensus has been achieved. Who could close the discussion and how to contact an admin to move this page? Thank you again for your help. Lesion (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. There are a few ways to close the RFC per Wikipedia:Requests for comment - "Ending an RFC":

There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment. RFCUs should be closed promptly if the issues are resolved. After 30 days they should be closed as soon as possible unless there are ongoing disruptions.

The closure of an Rfc may be reviewed at the Administrators' noticeboard. An Rfc may not be overturned on the basis the closing editor is not an administrator.

To remove an RfC from the active RfC list, remove the RfC template, {{rfc}}, from the talk page. The RfC bot will automatically remove an RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. It is unusual to extend an RfC beyond 30 days, but if there are no objections, or if the closer decides to extend it, this can be done by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date.

All requests for comment on a user, as opposed to an article, should be closed in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.

You can request the move a couple of ways. You can pick a random, uninvolved admin from this page: Wikipedia:List of administrators and simply ask for assistance in moving the page if consensus is clearly for the move or you can request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Although that does have a backlog and could take a good deal of time to get done.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Thanks for your offer to help with this page. I was a principal early editor and organizer and then did not edit for a long time. When I returned there was an ongoing effort to trim the article that had some validity due to the length, yet seemed consistently to delete, more often than not, facts that put BP and/or Transocean in a bad light, while preserving all the corporate heroic containment efforts and monetary sacrifices. One clearly less-experienced editor leans the other way and has erred on the side of inserting too much material.

When I was first editing there was considerable vandalism and unusual amount of undos.

Please note that cover-up of the facts is not theoretical here, but was charged by the federal government. The volume and extent of the spill was downplayed, inaccurately, from almost the start of the disaster. This was a very serious event not only for the environment, but involves -- even after plea bargaining and settlement -- misdemeanors, felonies, manslaughter, and record-setting fines.

Maintaining the integrity of the page shouldn't have to be a full time job but it appears that some editors have been driven off, beaten down.

Please see my recent comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Article_clean_up:_splits.2C_merges.2C_summaries_etc.

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#No_more_splits

and finally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Dispersal.2FCorexit. Thanks. Popsup (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help! Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor retention

I picked you at random from the retention project. Please will you offer a helping hand to User talk:Tallfromstpaul, whose heart is most definitely in the right place, and who needs some gentle guidance. His first article may or may not survive a deletion discussion and it would be a crying shame to lose him in the hurly burly of the discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, apologies for being away

Thanks for recent discussion of verifiability, etc. at my talk page (LeProf 7272). I have been away and very preoccupied with work and other demands. Look to you and similarly thoughtful, as hope of wikipedia. LeProf