User talk:Alanscottwalker

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

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive3

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


I had an edit conflict with HoppyH and think s/he's right, so I'm leaving my comment here instead of there.

No, you originally wanted to "give Crackel credit" not to give him his due, but to limit his writing as an opinion that TVH was presenting as fact.
Onuf, Langston, Wagoner & McDonald, Yarbrough, Robert P. Wettemann, Jr. (who cites to Kohn with a mere "Also see" to Crackel), and doubtless others, agree with Crackel. So, this isn't solely Crackel's argument: it has gained acceptance in the academy. We don't have to say in our narrative "as argued by Crackel" unless we tack on all the other scholars. We wouldn't do that. YoPienso (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect on why I think it's important to give credit and treat fact and analysis separately, so we will have to disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your great work, against overwhelming odds, in defending the conflict of interest guideline. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Alanscottwalker![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Society of Black Physicists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Davenport (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) 10:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. And for your comments. Very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

You are completely misunderstanding what I am writing on Jimbo's Talk page. I do understand the license we grant to the content we create; that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I hope you will reconsider what you are understand I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I understand - you are complaining about control, just think about that and think hard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, "control" is kind of the issue but not really. There are two issues. One is about the platform we all work on, that enables everything we do. The other is about the WMF's relationship with us. (neither is about content per se; it is kind of about control with regard to the tools and the one-way nature of the relationship when it comes to making decisions) But hey look - I am telling you that you are not understanding me. You have clearly judged me negatively based on your misunderstanding. You can stick with that if you like, but it is a waste of time for both of us. Like I said, I would be happy to answer any questions you have about what I what I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
No. I do understand. It's often the same thing over and over again in Wikipedia - people regularly come to a place where they just cannot deal with its set-up. It is unfortunate but, then they always blame it on others - as if they didn't know that others are what they would have to deal with going in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You do not understand and are misjudging based on your misunderstanding. I am OK with things the way they are. The tools are pretty crappy and archaic but they work. The WMF board is working on making radical changes to the tools we use and they are not talking to us about that, and according to Doc James he disagreed and that is why he was dismissed. I cannot say it more concisely than that. I don't mind people disagreeing with what I am actually saying (this happens all the time) but you don't seem interested in understanding what I am saying, so I am not going to take up more time with this for now. If you become interested in discussing what I am actually saying, I would be happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
About your last note on Jimbo's page. Yes you gave me some insight that I lacked into how fits into the KE picture. I acknowledged that. Nobody is perfect; we are all limited creatures. Being able to learn and acknowledge mistakes is not a sign of weakness. I do understand that in the forum-flaming world, acknowledging that you learned something or made a mistake is devastating. I don't live in that world. Apparently you do. And again, that is your deal. I am sorry that you have taken this antagonistic stance - I have seen you around WP and you do some good things here. Ah well. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who came out accusing and saying bad things about people. If you have not learned that draws response by now, sorry. I have only responded to the very things you have said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of what you have written was not about what I actually said, but rather what you thought I was talking about. I am sorry that you still don't understand what the issues are and are remaining antagonistic instead of dealing with them. They are important to all of us in my view. Anyway, good luck to you, and see you around. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who started off antagonistic. I understand very well. I have dealt with the exact things you have said. You don't like what I understand, fine. That is your problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
"Who was right" seems to be more important to you than dealing with the core of the matter, however messy it is to get there, and you still have said nothing about the actual issues I am raising nor am I sure that you even understand them. I had a better impression of you than this. I am unwatching your page now, but if you want to actually talk, please ping me. Again, good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Everything you say gets more ridiculous - so, I should care about your impression of me? - I see you do not know how to handle disagreement, without trying to get personal. I have responded to exactly what you said. The information and the ideas -- I cannot help it if you raise claims based on misinformation, except to correct your misinformation. I cannot help it that you complain about using content and then say you are not complaining about using content. I cannot help it, that you think badly of people. Every thoughtful Wikipedian knows that, your approach, with thinking badly about people, is precisely unworkable. It means you don't read what they write, things as simple as, "" Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi just thought I would check back and see if you wrote back. I cannot figure out how to talk with you, when you keep responding to things I am not saying (but are insisting I am saying). It is really frustrating for me, and I reckon it is for you to. I have no idea what you are saying, and you have no idea what I am saying. I am convinced you are not actually reacting to what I am saying, and you are convinced that you are. I have normal conversations all the time here, and I sense that you do too. So somehow we are just missing each other by miles. Crazy. I don't know how to fix it. Do you? (re-watching) Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

When multiple people are using words like trolling, paranoia, (or what I think, ABF) you know, perhaps you should rethink your approach. Not only, can no one have any useful conversation with someone who keeps crying, 'liar' - it really shows that it is impossible for you to think about others points-of-view. Let alone being actually careful about your facts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I asked you how you and I can re-set our discussion, and you continue to frame this as only my issue. OK then. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am not seeking to make a point, let alone a conversation, you are. And I am informing you how in my view it would be worthwhile to go about it, otherwise, it is not worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Black Metropolis[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I didn't express myself well[edit]

Re: Jty's saying "I'm done." I was trying to say that Jty is not welcomed on that page anymore - calling Jimbo a liar pretty much ensures that. I occasionally moderate Jimbo's talk page, in line with what he has stated several times, that others should moderate the page. So when Jty says he's done on the page, he's done. I'll just remove anything he adds from here on out. So there is no need for you to criticize Jty there (he can't answer). I didn't mean to say that you are not welcomed on that page. Sorry for not spelling it all out the first time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Still working on a draft,[edit]

but your comments are welcome.

See User:Smallbones/vital_articles#Draft_write-up

Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks, I do appreciate it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miguel I of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism (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, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of falsified credentials[edit]

Hi Alanscottwalker,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. Thanks. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 14:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


If this was the comment you were referring to in your recent post at ArbCom, then I completely agree with you. There is no place for such a blatant attack here. - theWOLFchild 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augustus Saint-Gaudens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grant Park (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) 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.


Hey Alanscottwalker, I was thinking more about what you said on WT:RFA, but I don't want to fill up that thread with an aside. I think that most new admins are active, for a while anyway. Activity does tend to wear off as time goes on, it begins to feel more like work, more repetitive etc. You're also right that the work is uninteresting for the most part, but I think the same could be said of any activity on here. Wikipedia isn't a roller-coaster; nothing that happens here is going to stimulate a dopamine reaction in the brain. People will contribute here if they feel that they get something out of it - an intrinsic sense of helping out being the ideal motivation, but everyone well knows that others exist. I personally would like to think that, in some small way, it matters. I am also fascinated by these discussions in general, and how much emphasis people put on these made-up roles on internet websites.

Anyway, I was just wondering what you thought would fix the problem then. What benefit would there be from removing the inactive admins? They could well have requested the tools with "impure" motivations, and after realizing that they didn't get more power, they just got more responsibility, they back off. But how will removing the "dead weight" change anything? I am just thinking that most of what you say about adminship could be applied to editing here in general, and I'm not seeing why adminship should be so different / important in comparison. And ultimately, if someone shows up who doesn't spend their whole life here, but still is around, then where is the harm in them becoming admins? Ajraddatz (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajraddatz: Not ignoring this but there are many responses to make and remember the question being asked was why people don't do it; something along the lines of 'it does not look like a good job and people are not trying to make it look worthwhile' is responsive to the question. I have more thoughts on how to respond here on larger and smaller issues and will get back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

George Tucker[edit]

We've done a fair amount of work on the presidents' articles and I thought I'd solicit your help with a FA nom on a biography I have worked on. The George Tucker (politician) nom needs a source review and there have been no takers on the request. Regardless, I think you'd enjoy the article. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the article and the kind invitation. I'll never, say never, but best to look elsewhere, at this time, sorry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment at Arbcom case[edit]

Hi Alanscottwalker, Per my comment at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Proposed decision#Ryk72.27s section, parts of your preceding comment are unclear to me. Would it be possible to clarify the meaning of the parenthesis in You did something those who saw it say is vile (and think you should have too) and were educated on policy. Thanks in advance for any response. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tribune-publishing-logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Tribune-publishing-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Giant boobs on the Tamar Bridge, or not[edit]

Hi Alan. I was prevented from replying to you at the A/N page, as the thread has been closed again. So I thought I had better reply directly to you here:

"The Coppafeel source has a picture (taken at the half-way point, with the walkers facing Plymouth), with no costumes and just says "a boob walk across the iconic Tamar Bridge". The Herald Express says "But before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon they were made to remove their big boob costumes to avoid startling motorists" but has a picture of them with their costumes on (taken in sunshine, on the east side, presumably before they started walking). So the word "pending" would be key, I think. Neither source definitely says they walked only one way. I am suggesting that the sources are rather scant and open to interpretation. And I've suggested that Ritchie33 edited in totally good faith to try and preserve what he thought was the more accurate hook. That's about it, really. I didn't expect to be described as "someone who likes to misunderstand everything only to defend a wikifriend."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I did not describe you at all, as anyone's friend, or otherwise. "Pending" was removed by Ritchie per the diffs. Last, what you are calling "interpretation" is OR. Yes, people make good faith mistakes, it's important to own them when they occur especially for admin acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. No, I'm not claiming you did describe me like that. That was Fram, as you'll see from the thread. I thought that was a pertinent comment about how that discussion had unfolded. I've just posted what I was about to add at the thread. I don't see any diff from Fram showing that Ritchie had removed "pending", or any asking why. As for interpretation of "before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon" - that phrasing suggests very strongly to me that they were wearing those costumes in Cornwall. I think that the border between "interpretation" and "OR" is sometimes indistinct. You may have seen that Ritchie himself has now removed all mention of the walk from the article with the edit summary: "rm off topic trivia only supported to a local source", so it seems like he's had second thoughts about its value. I still think Fram's approach was wholly uncalled for and over the top, "wikifriend" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
OK on the first, I just did not want anyone to think I described you. That diff of Ritchie removing "pending" was provided as part of the sequence, but here it is again [1]. Whether they wore them in Cornwall or not seems quite irrelevant to carrying them on the bridge, as they could wear them in Cornwall and not carry them on the bridge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's perfectly fair. I'd not want anyone to think that. Now I see that link - sorry it's the first time I've seen that. And I'm not sure why Ritchie made that change - the edit summary is a bit cryptic. Those breast costumes are quite odd aren't they. They have little hand images on the sides (as if they were being "carried", or indeed being fondled). They are obviously meant to look amusing. In the photo it's hard to determine if they are being worn or are being carried, i.e. held in front by each person. As regards the walking, personally, on the basis of the photos, I'd guess they had first walked westwards with the costumes on, and then back eastwards (from Cornwall into Devon) without them (they would have then been facing the oncoming traffic and thus would have been more of a distraction). But the sources are not 100% clear, are they? I can accept that Fram is fully justified in holding Admin actions to account, but is there really any need to adopt quite such a confrontational tone? Judging by other editor's inputs at the discussion, I don't think I was alone in thinking Ritchie had edited in perfectly good faith. I also think it's very wrong to impute guilt simply because someone has not responded. Thanks for listening. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
In fact, the sources are very clear to state one assertion: 'the costumes were removed before the bridge'. Beyond that, your or my speculation, while perhaps entertaining is totally irrelevant. As for your plea of "good faith", that also is irrelevant here. The claim was not that he acted in bad faith, the claim is that he misrepresented a topic/source on the main page, in an involved act, using admin permissions. Those may well be mistakes but none requires bad faith. One of the reasons we even have the rule against involvement is so that such mistakes do not occur. And again, when a mistake happens, what matters is owning it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The Herald Express headline is this: "Charity walkers forced to ditch giant breast costumes on Tamar bridge over fears they may cause crash". So we have to understand from that that the walkers actually "ditched" their costumes on the bridge, yes? In fact a normal reading of "ditching" tells us that the costumes were thrown over the side of the bridge, yes? You are saying that this is exactly what happened and is a certain fact? And I'm certainly not trying to claim that my "speculation" is "entertaining." I'm saying there is room for doubt, and for misinterpretation. And I'm not saying that Ritchie didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that Fram's approach is wholly out of all proportion and leaves a lot of people feeling thoroughly disappointed, dispirited, disheartened and demotivated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not. Reading a headline out-of-context is misrepresenting the source. The source is clear that the headline is referring to them removing the costumes so they would not be a distraction on the bridge and no one actually in reading that article can conclude they threw them in the river from the bridge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It continues: "But before crossing the Tamar Bridge from Cornwall into Devon they were made to remove their big boob costumes to avoid startling motorists." Still not clear to me that they definitely walked only only one way. I don't think small local newspapers are the best source for establishing clear facts about something that happened 18 months ago. Sorry if you disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I and you did not choose that source to support an assertion on the main page, but it remains that it supports removal of the costumes before the bridge, and not something else done with them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We didn't. I think we might possibly agree, taking all available sources, that they could have removed the costumes, somewhere on the bridge, after previously holding (or "carrying" them) somewhere near the bridge, before walking, in at least one direction, from Cornwall into Devon. (Obviously another really catchy hook there, I feel). But, of course, we don't know for sure, do we? Thank you for seeking some kind of mutual agreement in this situation. Martinevans123 (talk)
Well, what we don't know, we don't know, and more to the point, can't say in main space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. But sometimes we think we know, don't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
... you were recipient
no. 232 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)



thanks for your comments [2] at Talk:New York.

As promised, let's discuss it here.

I think that any suggestion that another user's arguments exhibit Dunning–Kruger effect is a personal attack, and that this is a case in point.

You disagree? Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I do. If you took that comment as a personal attack, I am sorry for the confusion. It was intended to comment on your argument, not you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
So, if the comment was not intended to suggest that I was a case of D-K, what was its intent? Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, at length, that your arguments' appeals to ignorance were highly unpersuasive. It was you, after all, that descended into speculating on motivation on that page, thereby demonstrating your biases about nothing you know about, and that's just one example. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And how did D-K come into that? Isn't that just another personal attack? Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No. That you would ask about the same thing over again means, we can go no further. Read the article, if you don't understand, perhaps that will help you because it appears I cannot. We have gone as far as we can on this topic as is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It appears that you consider it fair to raise D-K as you did, and will feel free to do so in the future, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The future will take care of itself, as they say, and I have no crystal ball, and as we have already discussed the past, there is nothing more to any of this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Alanscottwalker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS proposal: listing successors to incumbent politicians[edit]

Hey, Alanscottwalker. I thought you would be interested in this MOS change I've proposed. I expect that it will be consistent with the current consensus, but you might have other perspectives as well. Edge3 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)