User talk:Edison/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Limited Time Offer! READ BELOW!

Do you or your family have Wikiphobia? Then you are about to blow your head off with this state of the art formula called PhobiaNoMore. This legendary medication can ease off your Phobias including Wikiphobia if your are afraid of being on Wikipedia. If you are a Call of Duty fan, you can even recieve Modern Warfare 3 or Black Ops for free! So come on down and talk to me on my talk page for infomation about this limited time offer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.225.127 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship

"If I trust someone with some of the tools, I trust him with all the tools" - me too.

"If RFA is broken, this is not a good way to fix it." - OK, so, can you think of a better way? 'Coz it's been discussed, for many years, and nobody has come up with anything.

So can't we at least try something new?  Chzz  ►  01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Edison. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Blanche Kelso Bruce

Hello,

My only motivation in mentioning Bruce was to encourage curious editors to take a look at that article, perhaps learn something, and maybe help improve that article. My remark derived from my lifelong delight in the random browsing of encyclopedias. I did not mean to suggest or even subtly imply inherited notability. I apologize if you perceived my comment to be out of line. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Confessiones

When I read your post, I felt you must have had the same translation as I did - the one by Henry Chadwick. I got the audio book, narrated by Richard Ferrone, which is sounded as if the great man stood right next to me and thanks to some miracle I could understand him directly, without any language barrier. The translation seems to be very congenial; I sometimes followed it along at and did not stumble over anything I felt was awkwardly translated. — Sebastian 02:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I don't understand what you're writing about his remarks on theater; if you just replace that with "TV", that translates directly to our times, at least for me. — Sebastian 02:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

I guess im not a good wikipediar

Sorry I was just trying to join the community but i guess im not such a good wikipediar and im bad for the community. So you can delete my account i guess. Sorry for being a burden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unctuousness (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No burden at all. We do not "delete the accounts" of vandals. We just block them from editing. You are welcome to edit productively. Edison (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks maybe i can try again and do a better post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unctuousness (talk • contribs) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ok i tried to add the reference and then some guy named bot deleted it. this seems like kind of an elite comunity that i am not cut out for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unctuousness (talk • contribs) 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:LightshiftZero

User talk:LightshiftZero, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:LightshiftZero and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:LightshiftZero during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Edison (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated wrong page, withdrew nomination. Edison (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent articles for deletion

Hi, thanks for you input on the Rekha Kumari-Baker AFD [1]. I have some concerns about the nominating editor and the recent exchanges I've had with them and the way they are following me around. They've now also nominated a further article I created as well when the notability is obvious.[2]. I'd appreciate your view on the situation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Some diffs [3], [4], [5]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Turning off Wikipedia for a day

Blacking out English language Wikipedia for 24 hours to protest a US government action which might harm internet sites seems like a case of Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Edison (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012


User:Edison replaced temporarily by User:BnBH

I am (temporarily) changing my editing from username User:Edison to User:BnBH, in honor of Beavis and Butt-head, two funny lads whose antics make as much sense as does turning off Wikipedia to protest proposed legislation, a publicity stunt akin to chaining the doors of the library for a day to protest legislation which might amount to censorship, or putting on a Spiderman suit and climbing the US Capitol dome to make some political point. I believe that as a tax exempt charity, Wikipedia should not be conducting publicity stunts such as the one day blackout in an effort to influence legislation in the US Congress. Edison (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy having a publicity stunt all to yourself. Or are you expecting the mass media to report on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No, basking in media coverage is a joy left to the agitprop brigade, who would prefer garnering publicity to maintenance and improvement of an online encyclopedia. The alternate account is now retired, having been used for a period equal to the madness of blacking out the encyclopedia to save it. One hopes that withdrawal symptoms from the adrenaline rush from the 24 hour blackout do not lead to more similar disruptions of the encyclopedia to achieve political goals. To quote the article on the cartoon series which inspired the alternative account, "Their actions sometimes have dire consequences, for which they show little remorse." Edison (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as an aside, you have not changed your user name. You have created an alternate account, which is a completely different thing. It's a little surprising that a long-time admin is unaware of the distinction. Nor have you satisfied the requirements of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. There's no problem with having an alternate account per se but please be careful to follow policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read carefully before you criticize. Then you will find fewer "surprises." Note that I did not say I had changed my username, just that "I am (temporarily) changing my editing from username User:Edison to User:BnBH." Editing from a different name is not the same as changing names. Please also note that I said above "The alternate account is now retired." The retired alternate account which will not be used in the future and the main account are informally linked by postings in the talk pages, and user pages, which are permanently in the edit history. Please retrieve your stick; the deceased equine is sufficiently beaten. I am now working to reference some of the unreferenced 250,000 articles, so tagged as long ago as October 2006. Why don't you also carry on with your efforts to improve the encyclopedia? Edison (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dire consequences

Given that the apparent consequences of the protest conducted by thousands of websites, most notably Google and Wikipedia in the top 10, has been the prompt withdrawal of the legislation in both houses of Congress, I struggle to detect what is "dire" in the outcome. Perhaps you could elaborate based on real world political commentary, as opposed to to references to vulgar animated cartoon shows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, Cullen. Edison is a troll, plain and simple. If you have any doubt, read this. He compared opposition to SOPA/PIPA to proponents of racial segregation. It doesn't get any more trollish than that. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the continued baiting, wild accusations and harassment by Viriditas, who seems to be unhampered by WP:NPA and responding to Cullen328, my concerns are as follows: There was a precipitous escalation from a proposal for putting a banner on the site, to a US shutdown, to a shutdown for users worldwide of the English language Wikipedia. The first of the Five Pillars says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox," but for 24 hours, that was all it was. The Fourth Pillar says "never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." A blackout is an extreme disruption made to illustrate a point. The Third pillar says "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute." But for that day those activities were intentionally interfered with. An argument that "The Foundation had to implement the wishes of those who voted for it" ignores the recent precedent of the Foundation staffers overruling a consensus on a trial of barring non-confirmed editors from creating articles, which had won 2/3 support in a well-publicized and long running RFC on the grounds that it was incompatible with their vision of the project. Another issue is that Wikipedia is a US tax exempt charity, and directing users to contact their congressmen and demand a particular outcome is not compatible with that tax exempt status. Fortunately,the IRS does grant a bit of leeway, like 5%, so if this was a onetime event at least there should be no consequences. The big happy back-slapping party of mutual congratulations raises concerns that some in the community may wish to use blackout or threat of blackout in the future to get their way in a variety of issues. I hope that we can keep it to a click-through banner in the future. Edison (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a legal threat against Wikipedia. Should I request your indefinite block? Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please quote the part which you take as a legal threat. I can't find one. Edison (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I also see no legal threat, but just a discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a new concept: IAP - "Ignore All Pillars". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
For the nth time, Wikipedia is not neutral and has never claimed to be neutral. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, but Wikipedia has always been frank about its POV as an organization: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."[6] Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

501(c)(3) status

I believe that you are factually wrong when you say that encouraging our readers to contact legislators to oppose legislation is somehow incompatible with tax exempt status. IRS regulations explicitly permit such lobbying, as long as it is secondary to the tax exempt (educational in this case) purpose. Many tax exempts do so routinely, but are careful to stay within the guidelines, as the Foundation has done. When discussing the five pillars, do not forget "ignore all rules". I very much appreciate your thoughtful response here, and I can assure you that this editor will be very slow and cautious about recommending similar protests in the future. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the IRS says a small amount of lobbying is ok. Their website says "..it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." We also have or recently had an article listing those congressmen who support either of the two bills, List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA, and it could be interpreted as a way of pressuring them. Some in the present AFD called it a "hit list" for pressuring legislators with the "wrong" position, or as "advocacy." My concern sprang from the glee so many editors expressed with the success of the action /lobbying campaign, and the likelihood that some will want to do so on additional occasions in the future, since this one was called such a blissful success. Edison (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The American Cancer Society is allowed to encourage its supporters to call members of Congress to vote in favor of restrictions on smoking and environmental carcinogens, and in fact has done so for decades. Other non-profits do similar lobbying. What Wikipedia has done is precisely analogous. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the IRS would classify the recent one day blackout as a "substantial" part of Wikipedia's efforts this year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a one time or very occasional lobbying effort is tolerated by the IRS on the part of tax-exempt charities. My objective in this is to restrain the project from descending into frequently being a political action site. Edison (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with or surprising about a little glee when a campaign is so obviously successful. I very much doubt that this type of tactic will be employed again, let alone become common. I will vigorously oppose that. You don't need to be grumpy about other's happiness about the results just because you, in good faith, opposed the blackout. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Prompted by your comment (which was not canvassing), I have recommended "Delete" in the AfD debate regarding List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:204.38.172.102

Hello. About a year ago you blocked this IP for a year. Today they make a vandalistic edit and then immediately deleted it, which I interpret as testing the waters to see if they can edit again. I suggest an eye be kept on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbath Rest Advent Church

Hey Edison, if you have a moment, please revisit the article and the AfD. I found a URL for the German handbook so I could read it, and have summarized some of its information in the lead. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Reply at User talk:TechnoSymbiosis

Hi Edison, not sure if you had my page on your watchlist, but I finished writing my reply to you over there. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Edison,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Vote on Syrian Talk page

I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Mallasseril (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Dear Mr. Edison

I'm responding to your review of Immanuel Mar Thoma Church, Virginia page that I created. Thank you for your feedback and notice to make corrections. I have added references that are relevant to the claim that St. Thomas visited India and established Churches. Immanuel Mar Thoma Church, Virginia is a parish under Mar Thoma Syrian Church in India. We see the entry in wikipedia as evolving. Thank you for your suggestions. If it is acceptable to you can you please remove the deletion notice from our page.

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Re: Stomach bed

My sense from reading the article was that it was a term of convenience used to refer to a group of structures, rather than a system, where there's a lot to say about how the different components work together. However, if you think there's more to say about it than just a definition than I won't object to keeping it. GabrielF (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply on the charge of copyright violation of nondeterministic finite automaton with ε-moves

There are multiple things wrong with the copyright violation charge. Let me enumerate

  • Secondly, these are very standard definitions in computer science. Every year taught in basic computer science courses. Almost all books, websites, and research papers define in the same ways. Can someone own standard math?
  • Thirdly, problem is the references. This article needs serious work to make it informative. Many things are to be added. I will work on this article in next couple of weeks to make it actually readable.
  • Finally, The link [[7]] actually copied the content from wikipedia :D. The link itself says that.

For final declaration, I have only added paragraphs copied from other wikipedia pages or wrote stuff my self. There was no copy or paste.Ashutosh Gupta (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

McKinley

I'm not sure you understand. Coemgenus and I are renovating the article in preparation for FAC. Some of the stuff in there is stated elsewhere, other stuff really isn't terribly relevant. If you notice, we've been inserting new sections and taking out old ones for days.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Plaquemines Parish

Hello Edison. My E Mail address is jeannegriffin@hotmail.it I understand your reluctance to post personal information about people on a public forum such as the ref desk. Thank you for helping me as that photo really fascinates me for some reason.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Empty mailbox

It's amazing how many weeks can pass with nothing on the talk page but "The Signpost." Edison (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Proposed deletion of Mobi Okoli‎

The article Mobi Okoli‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about my errors. I tend to forget it more often then I should. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

RE: My removing a vote

I normally don't do that. I had moved a couple of misplaced IP comments, but was a little aggravated by the time I got to that particular comment. Safiel (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Ralston Middle School

Sure, but it may be a few days. I've got several projects on the back burner - I'll try to get to it sometime in the next couple days though. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney AFD

Hi,

When you made this edit you seem to have removed my !vote and possibly others. I have reverted to a previous version so can you please redo what you were trying to do? Thanks. SÆdontalk 23:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't sure what you were doing do I didn't want to attempt the repair myself. Thanks for fixing. SÆdontalk 23:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Regarding the Pigasus article - thank you

Edison,

Thank you for looking into the Pigasus article. On the article talk page, I asked for/invited further assistance in better documenting the page. It is most appreciated! Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I read your post on my talk page, and I whole-heartedly agree. The unintended consequence regarding Humphrey/Nixon never occurred to me! Thanks again for your great research. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Edison, the Wilson ref was originally this: [1] but that relates to the Illuminatus Trilogy, and I know you are not comfortable with that as a reference. Please do what you think is best. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a page number - so please do what you think is best and most encyclopedic (!) Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In the deletion discussion, an (anonymous) editor disapproves of the photo caption "Pigasus out on parole." I believe this caption and the other one "Pigasus waves at his supporters" retains the spirit of the Pigasus nomination, without injecting undue "hoaxery" - since obviously pigs don't get paroled or wave at their supporters. What do you think? If you disapprove of these captions, please remove them. I think you're a good, objective voice in this. Thanks, and thanks for all the work you've been doing on Pigasus. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

More Pigasus material

The New York Times obituary for Abbie Hoffman mentions the Pigasus nomination - but it's part of a longer statement by attorney William Kunstler, regarding Hoffman's dexterity at political theater. [8]

The New York Times obituary for Jerry Rubin also mentions it [9].

I also found this striking YouTube video, with two minutes of actual footage of the Pigasus nomination in 1968 [10]. Unfortunately, the footage begins at 10:30 (10 & 1/2 minutes into the video) and is preceeded by largely unrelated material. I'll see if I can find other footage. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was able to include the New York Times material in the new section you created, "After the 1968 Democratic Convention." Also, an editor named Northamerica1000 is doing some great work. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your great work of research and editing on Pigasus — 
The article was Kept. You did a great thing. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

2010 dam flooding do i need more information

hello thank you edison user talk josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus Trilogy

Hello

I understood your nod and have made a slight change to my signature, I would love to hear your comment to improve my signature furthur if needed, as it does not feels good to me find people unable to read my name. I am aware of wp:SIGN Thanks for your opinion. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • have incorporated all your suggestions into this one -> --DℬigXray 05:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Clarification

I've copied the following from User talk:My76Strat/Archive 7 to ensure your best opportunity to review. I was quick archiving the page and didn't want the wrong impression to prevail. The reply shown here is also the last from My76Strat. I began using the piped signature thereafter. With esteem - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Please clarify your term "extenuation of mis-charactorizions ." You are esteemed. Thanks! Edison (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for inquiring this of me. Before I do what you've asked I want you to know I was determined upon logging in to message your talk page to extend clarification to you. Simply because it was so roundly decided that I was out of line in my remarks when they were designed as a complement. My word "choice" was: "good faith mis-charactorizions" of which the "good faith" portion seems to have been immediately lost. For some reason, and it does get by me, there was outcry and specific mention of my choosing to include a form of the word "extenuation" I could link the other two but frankly I'm going to stop trying as hard as I have in the past and start valuing my time more than I have. Don't get me wrong here, please! I am simply going to try and give my last good answer, because you deserve it. And I emphatically promise this site my prose will evaporate to become no more. I would probably be done answering your question already if you hadn't realigned my words into a quote that itself misrepresents what I was saying to begin with. Here again I truly believe there was nothing nefarious in your design, but that doesn't mean it is inconsequential. The "extenuation" I described was attributed to "your manner" which I did say I "love" and "applaud". I described a "measure of clarity" that would be "irrefutable" (for its congruent flow) provided the premise itself was also irrefutably "true". So the direct answer begins here. Your premise that my style relates to "entertainment" and "comedic value" is unfortunately wrong and from that foundation you reached the only possible conclusion: that I apparently "play games with words", a "temptation" I apparently can not "resist". Betwixt the premise and conclusion were statements of "habitual obfuscation seen in this candidate's writing" which I would like to have investigated further; for it led to the interim concern that I might "issuing warnings or explanations to other users with intentional malapropisms or obfuscations", even though there are thousands of examples where the opportunity existed where I did not, ever! It would be different if you could show one example where I had. Over 700 accounts created where I am the very first person from Wikipedia that communicates to the new account and not one example. 700 email addresses that I have access to and not 1 improper communication. 100's of questions and answers on talk pages with zero example. In fact It was my hope that we could look at some of these to at least see if you would reconsider if I was "habitually obfuscatory" or perhaps: Too often obfuscatory, which I would have better accepted. The whole notion that I included a statement for an intrinsic need to be esteemed is flat wrong, you were not the first to suggest it, and it was pretty clear that no one was concerned that I stated I had been shown something that made it clear. The fact is from the moment I emerged my first RFA I have been declined for every advance permission subsequently requested. If I hadn't already been an ambassador or account creator prior to the RfA I wouldn't be one today (I did withdraw my ambassadorship yesterday). And the thing I was shown made that abundantly clear. So now I know why I could never advance to regional ambassador, even though I enjoyed my role, and felt qualified to do more. I was there from day 1, made the first edit to the discussion, gave the best of my allocation, produced some of these 100's and 1000"s of edits I wished would amount to something, but found that when the doors closed, other matters superseded all else. Anyway forget all of that, The path through RfA to clear the stifling effect of RfA did not work. I'm no worse for it as I was already blackballed. I should just stop. If you have other questions I'll touch the surface with an answer. I appreciate above all else that you chose to esteem your regards here! That did not get by me and I see no harm done in uplifting a brother who is down. My76Strat (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

This is obviously a blog or something similar to Wiki. Please do not cite. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1207042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Pavletic111

Thanks for your help here. I wish you'd warned him also, particularly it would have been a good idea to give him a COI welcome or warning. As it is, someone gave him a chocolate chip cookie warning after his last edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment formatting at the reference desk

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Camera on a timer in 1850?, I fixed your formatting. However, it's still a bit confusing because of the old signature and the separate paragraphs... You don't really need to change anything, but I wanted to bring it to your intention in case you were unhappy with my change. BigNate37(T) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Arthur MacArthur IV

The article was not deleted and the redirect can be reverted by any editor. I believe that in the AfD context it is important to distinguish between deletion which hides the history from view and redirection which preserved the history for later merging or restoration. As I explicitly noted in my AfD close, my decision to redirect the article was made in my editorial not administrative capacity and as such should not be construed as the official result of the AfD and you, or anyone, is free to revert it. Given my own reading of the discussion, in which a strong argument was made that the only "significant" coverage he has received is in the context of his relationship with his father I think that further discussion is likely to endorse a redirect, but I do not claim that there was consensus in the AfD for that view or that my redirection is other than an ordinary editorial decision subject to ordinary WP:BRD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Earthing article deleted by scsbot

Hi Edison,

You are no doubt amused. An scsBot has run, doing the day's Ref Desk archiving. It deleted our discussion under heading Please explain consumer earthing, along with other questions for 3 August as would be expected, but did not copy it into the the archive page.

Best regards, Keit120.145.62.36 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Archiving now seems to have been partially reversed and the question has re-apeared! Keit120.145.72.208 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be "grounds" for a complaint about the Bot. Please consider creating an account rather than a constantly changing IP, so that others can send you communications. Edison (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 05:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neil Armstrong

I am saddened beyond words by the passing of this hero of space exploration. Edison (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, Edison. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

IP editor warning

Thank you for taking prompt action regarding IP 107.198.61.36 who was abusing Gardiner, Maine. The IP editor was not only adding an individual who does not meet reliable source criteria, but also deleted large swaths from the article out of frustration. It also does not appear that the individual trying to be added would actually be considered a notable person. It is common to see small town stories picked up by international news outlets with the nature of the internet today. Foggynotion (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with the inclusion of Rita Crundwell in the notable section of Dixon, Illinois. First, the amount embezzled was $53 million, which is substantial and extremely unusual. Second, she was first known as "considered one of the best known breeders of American Quarter Horse in the United States" (and possibly the world), before she was charged with the embezzlement crime. Whereas, I know of at least 3 other small-town-employee embezzlement in the Gardiner, Maine area alone that have happened over the past few years (some with much more press coverage). Google "Carole Swan Chelsea Maine" for an example. Chelsea being located only 8 miles from Gardiner. Again, thank you tons for your prompt action here. Foggynotion (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, Edison. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination).
Message added 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure if you watched this, but I posted a kind of (sorry) lengthy reply there to you. I'd appreciate a reply when you get a chance. Thanks :) gwickwire | Leave a message 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records's talk page. Message added 00:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

An invitation for you!

Hello, Edison. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 18:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up after me. LadyofShalott 03:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Nikola Tesla

Sorry about deleting the credible source earlier-- I did not see the pdf that was attached. However, the reason why I added so many [citation needed] tags was because I looked through some of the books to determine their credibility, and I discovered that some were conspiracy books. For example, one cited book kept on supporting the existence of the illuminati, and another cited book was for x-rays, but nowhere did it make those claims when I utilized the Ctrl-F function. In addition, there was this uncited statement-- "Wardenclyffe Tower was demolished by Boldt to make the land a more viable real estate asset"-- which is dubious, for a cited statement a few paragraphs before it states that it was blown up " due to fears that German spies were using it and that it could be used as a landmark for German submarines". However, I probably did make a few mistakes with the [citation needed] tags, so I will delete some unnecessary ones later. I will even attempt to find the sources later on for some that dont have. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 15:24, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Help with vandalizing

IP 72.224.205.43 is vandalizing Craig Hickman. I outlined the issue on the IP user's talk page. Is this something you could help with? Summability (talk) 3:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Edison.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Your deletion

Hi Edison. I question your deletion of RS-supported text. It is RS-supported. It is highly relevant. Most of the article consists of material that is not "official". That is not our test. Our test is RS coverage.

Your edit summary was "(cur | prev) 21:01, April 15, 2013‎ Edison (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,630 bytes) (-438)‎ . . (→‎Investigation: Remove statement about a ":Saudi national" that one civilian thought looked suspicious. Wait for any official announcement he is a suspect.)"

He is the one person detained in police custody, as RS reported. I would urge you rethink and revert. If we have editors -- even more, sysops -- deleting any information they don't like on the "for that information I will assert that an official announcement is required" basis, we will go down a bad road.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you have your personal analysis of events. And of course your analysis may very well be completely correct.
But we follow the RSs. That's how we keep our (myriad, among the editors at the project) personal analyses out. The way we avoid the POV fights where one editor says "lets avoid a mob mentality" and another says "but that is what the RSs say ... why would you censor it to push your pov by not reflecting it?" is we reflect RSs. Accurately. Certainly, CBS is an RS.
That also prevent other editors from deleting RS-supported text you add, that they don't like, for similar reasons.
Otherwise, anytime anyone disagrees with Edison's point of view, all they have to do is...based on their personal viewpoint...label your point of view a "mob mentality." And then delete RS-supported text. And delete the RS refs. Saying "Edison is reflecting mob-mentality RS-reported material".
Certainly, the CBS-reported material you deleted was sufficiently RS. We don't await government official pronouncements for material that we don't like -- and then include RS info that is not reflected in government official announcements when it comes to material we do like.
At the same time, it is of course perfectly fine to say "CBS reports ..." -- Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be easier to follow the conversation if it stays where it started, rather than hops around. As to your comments and question, you say we are discouraged from labeling someone as in custody when it is not verified to be true. But here it was verified to be true. By a high-level RS. The text -- without raising the blp issue raised when a person is identified by name -- reflected the CBS news articles that stated that an individual was in custody. If a second RS article says that nobody is in custody, and the first RS was incorrect, we report both RS statements. We don't choose the one we like, and delete the other RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss this on the article's talk page. Edison (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand. And as you may have seen, I had already made shorter mention there. There, it is relatively moot, as there is reference in the article now to the fellow's house being searched (a further development, along the same lines). I just thought it important to mention to you, as I think we need an extraordinary steeped-in-guidelines reason to delete RS supported text, from a high-level RS such as CBS, that does not identify any individual. It's a slippery slope, and this is one area I think we have to be on guard against the floodgates of POV editing such deletions would open up.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that you have a right to include anything in any article, as long as it came from a reporter at CBS. We can consider more than one source and evaluate the appropriateness of including any one news story. Not every thing that a reporter writes on a CBS site is justified in being included in a high interest, breaking news article such as this, especially when it is contrary to the official statement of the police department, as to whether the Saudi man was or was not in custody, and especially when there are BLP concerns. Many breaking crime and terrorism stories are rife with false leads which get appropriately removed from articles. We do not have to rush out with an update everytime some reporter rushes to print with the "hot scoop" leaked to him anonymously by some alleged law enforcement source. We are not on deadline, and now the police are saying he was likely not involved. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to go on and on here about my edit. You can also edit the article, if you disagree, and especially if there is a consensus on the talk page as to what should appear in the article which is inconsistent with my view. Get a consensus on the talk page and make the article reflect it. Edison (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Moot here, now, as essentially already reflected. Though the issue is coming up again, in instances where half a dozen top-level RSs are reporting the same material, but some editors are seeking to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Very nice

Your endorse comments were excellent. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Séralini affair may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

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

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Move Duckworth RfC to BLPN

Hello. You are one of 6 or 7 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I am posting this message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 02:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

grammar

Your statement [11] is true, but one of your premises is false. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I give up. What premise is false? Edison (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That it was inadvertent; it was meant as a friendly tribute to someone who finds the error a bugaboo. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL! It was a surprise, since your grammar and spelling had never before raised an eyebrow. Edison (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Redirect

Sure, go ahead and delete it. I just feel that seeing some content is better than a useless blank page. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blondell Reynolds Brown may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in a timely way on finance disclosure forms and numerous donations were over legal limits.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20130413020541/http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/pdfs/Settlement%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, man: Just who the heck do you think you are?

Reverting my edit without even warning me first, thanks a lot. The shock and outrage I simultaneously felt made me spill my orange juice all over my desk so now my keyboard is ruined and my legs are all sticky.

I bet you aren't even really Thomas Edison. According to his Wikipedia page he died a long time ago of a boner overdose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh no, it's me again. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

O no, is it Jamie? Edison (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, I'm afraid. Is he one of the other people you so cavalierly hurt the feelings of on this webpage? I would yell at you a lot more right now, but my cat got stuck to my leg because of the spilled juice and I don't want people who see me today out in town to get the wrong idea like I stuck my cat to my inner thigh on purpose. But, geez, man: who do you think you are? Some sort of God who can just cover up the truth? I bet you're one of those ignorant sheeple who always just believes the official story. Man, open your eyes and see the light.

P.S, since you dodged my questions about Edison, I'll assume your just a false heir to his estate trying to make a quick buck on his good name. You probably haven't submitted a patent in your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh no, it's me again. (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannock_Chase_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=569484747 Kiko4564 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history of the talk page of the editor who vandalized the article you finally provided a link to. You will notice that I placed a warning on his talk page following my revert, but you had already placed a higher level warning there, making mine redundant. I then removed my redundant (lower level) warning, with an edit comment that explained the incident and noted it was an edit conflict. It is usually a good idea to look at the history of a vandal's talk page before placing a warning, because they often delete warnings, leading the next vandal whacker to be unaware of previous warnings. In this case your warning was there first, but it was not there when I started adding my own warning (edit conflict). Edison (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A barn star for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
On behalf of the whole Wiki Communitee I present you this award for defending Wikipedia!--Mishae (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
225 banned and counting...--Mishae (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you do not understand the difference between blocking vandals after suitable warnings and banning. I would be happy to explain. But thank you very much for the Barn Star. There have been very few of them.. Edison (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Normally, people say thanks and that's it. Its called a good etiquette. From my understanding a ban is when you block a user indefinitely, a block is when you block him once or twice. Am I correct? Either way, this discussion is closed, I am happy that you liked my award and will hopefully apologize for an accusation which in part is actually a misunderstanding. :)--Mishae (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The distinction between "bans" and "blocks" is explained at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Regards. Edison (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

New thread by MrScorch6200

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Bvn2010. Thank you. Don't tell other editors that they are doing the encyclopedia no good, as you also did at user talk:Mishae. Please reference WP:ETIQ. MrScorch6200 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanking a vandal for a BLP violation in which he called someone a "porn star" without providing any reference literally "does the encyclopedia no good," so I must stand by that comment. See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That probably happened because when using Twinkle, if you go to a user talkpage from an article (by going to the history and clicking the username) and click welcome the user (in Twinkle), it automatically enters the article name into "linked article". This results into the welcome message welcoming the vandal for their contributions to said article. This discussion is all just a big misunderstanding. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly mistakes happen, even by good-faith editors. But it pays to take at least a brief look at what edit someone made, and to note that a robotic filter labelled it as a possible BLP violation, before rushing off to lavishly thank the person for making the edit.Saying "But I used Twinkle!" is not an acceptable excuse. Edison (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You are going to have to take that up with user:Mishae. Also, I did not say, "But I used Twinkle!", I clearly said on my talkpage twice, "That's a result of using Twinkle, it automatically does that, but it's still my fault and thank you for bringing it to my attention. MrScorch6200 (talk) 12:17 am, Today (UTC−4)," Please stop making these false accusations. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that I take full responsibility for edits made using Twinkle. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Listen! My Welcome and your warning is 3 seconds, yes seconds apart. How did I knew about him being a vandal, plus I only do greeting for 3, 3 days! I seek an apology for an accusation! Now, I will invite Justin and he will talk to both of us. This is ridiculous.--Mishae (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't understand where you get "3 seconds." The BLP vio was done in the same minute you posted the w"welcome and thanks." I reverted it a minute later, and I posted a warning on the BLP violator's page a minute after that. The edit summaries give hours and minutes, not seconds. For some reason, it seems to show my local time on the article page and UTC on the other editor's page. No apology by me is needed forcomplaining about your haste to welcome the BLP violator without looking at the evidence of a BLP violation robotically posted in the initial edit summary, let alone looking at the nature of the new editor's contribution. Slow down and make sure your post on a new editor's page is an appropriate one, rather than attacking anyone who criticizes your editing. Edison (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. My fault, minutes. Now can we just pass that line and start all over, I apologized to you for what I did, now I need you to do the same.--Mishae (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly sorry that my words were not differently chosen, Mishae, since my desire was to encourage your efforts in welcoming new editors, but to encourage distinguishing between new goodfaith editors and blatant vandals or ones with username violations such as these you had welcomed: "Eatmya55andshutthefuckup" which is a variation on "Eat my ass and shut the fuck up" or 5lut5v1ll3 which is a variation on "Slutsville", and who had just added "sluts" as "notable people" in a town article. It is not always obvious that someone has disguised an improper username by substituting numbers for their lookalike letters. But no worry, since the latter two were soon blocked by others as username violations and/or vandalism only accounts. If you wish to welcome all, that is fine, and others can do the vandalism and username patrol. Edison (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MrScorch6200. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Marko Mamić, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. MrScorch6200 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Poorly done

Re [12] -- well, your message really had a crappy tone. As I told M on his talk page, welcoming a vandal is essentially harmless -- sure, it's arguable that would encourage the vandal to try again but that's really a thin argument. And of course it would be good if we had more editors noting and reverting vandalism -- but the essential nature of Wikipedia volunteerism is, as long as editors aren't violating policy they can do whatever work they want -- with very few exceptions, no one is required to do anything. So if M would rather personally welcome new editors than revert vandalism, that's a legit choice. NE Ent 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And your message is such a wonderful exemplar of politeness. Well done! Edison (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Eh ... I beg to disagree NE. I thought it was even-tempered and fine. I've seen crappy tone at the project. This doesn't seem to me to qualify. Though I laud you for looking out for instances of it, and mentioning it when you think a line has been crossed. I just don't think this is an example of the problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Need your help

First of all, I have replied on the Worm That Turned talkpage and excepted your apology with suggestions applied there as well. But I am not here for that, I found a user who wasn't blocked for an apparent provocative username and vandalism:

Now, this user wasn't welcomed by me since it was way before I became a greeter. However, don't go to greeters talkpage and accuse them of welcoming a vandal. I hope this will give a clear message that I do report vandals and not welcome them!:) Currently though, he is doing just fine, just like the rest of us, but his username is something that I am concerned about.--Mishae (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question has edited for 5 years without getting a block for vandalism, or even a vandalism warning that i could find, although there were a few complaints about civility. He's done lots of productive edits to a variety of articles. So I would not expect anyone to have complained to the editor who greeted him years ago for having welcomed a vandal. Having "bloody" as part of a username might be more offensive to a Brit than to an American. Bloody says the word is not considered vulgar in Australia or the US, and was formerly in Britain, but not so much presently that it couldn't be used several time by a child character in the Harry Potter stories. I have not seen that anyone complained about the name in 5 years, so it doesn't seem to be an issue. Regards. Edison (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. This case closed. What about those:
I left a notice on the page of Kingsmarketinginc that a name implying it represents a commercial organization (such a company exists), or that it is a role account" and not an individual account, is a problem. With regard to the other two you mentioned, the first one could relate to a company or could just represent the image the user wishes to have on Wikipedia. Google shows that people apparently unrelated to a company are using it on various forums other than Wikipedia. the third one could be someone's name or could imply a political (events in Syria) or religious position (see Sufyani and Osama). But the editors haven't edited yet If you see a blatant violation, and the editor has edited recently, you can post it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where administrators specializing in username problems respond. Many people create accounts with odd names and then never edit with them. If they then start a career of policy violations, having a problematic name will not particularly help them when they start down the road to getting blocked. Edison (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. The second one was my poor knowledge of Islam, and I take the blame. Sexyglo is different though, it have reference to sex, and even though that Wikipedia have plenty of nude photos, or various porn stars that doesn't mean that a user is allowed to have it too, or am I wrong? On a side note, is your first name is Thomas by any chance?--Mishae (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is any uncertainty and if the user hasn't edited recently, then the username policy suggests taking no action. Edison (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

My RfA

I was remiss at not thanking you for your support. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

how is vandalize? sorry i don't know how messages work

how is vandalize? sorry i don't know how messages work i hope this is right Lakdfhia (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013


You are off base...

When a wiki page references a source such as Snopes, especially if it involves political themes, the political leanings of the owners of the sight MUST be disclosed. It is no secret that Snopes is owned by leftists, and their political views most certainly come into play when issues that may expose unkind truths of the left are the subject of their 'debunking'...

Afreemaninfl (talk)afreemaninfl —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You added your opinion that Snopes "is run by lefties" to an article inappropriately. You did not provide any source to back up your opinion, contrary to Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources to verify information in article. When you added your opinions to the article a second time, another editor removed it. Edison (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(Seeming BLP violation by Afreemaninfl deleted)
Afreemaninf, you are very welcome to keep other editors honest if they stray from the required neutral point of view. But you are violating WP:BLP when you assert that someone is a rapist, when they have not been convicted in a court of law, so I have deleted your last post from this talk page, an action I have rarely if ever taken so far as my own talk page is concerned. The Assange article says "Assange is accused of sexual misconduct with two women while in Sweden in August 2010." That is as far as you may go in describing his status. "Accused" and "alleged" are useful words in cases where WP:BLP relates to possible crimes. Edison (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Rise of Rome

Umm, I've never before heard anyone equate "redirect" with "blank"; if we adopted your perspective on this issue, we'd start deleting pages under G7 anytime that their creators turned them into redirects. Readers are still able to view the page history without difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that we prohibit blanking, while we don't prohibit redirects and other severe editing. I'll not inflexibly revert of course, as I would if someone inserted a copyvio, but I will not personally restore content like this. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

for Exercise and blood sugar control at the Ref Desk

The Reference Desk Barnstar
For this answer, good enough to be a movie plot outline! μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This thread also led me to another novel of a genre I enjoy, the one cited by the OP, where people suddenly have to live without modern technology, or have to redevelop it. Edison (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heinrich Göbel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{=== Investigations of recent years ===
  • *Patent 252.658 „Vacuum Pump (Improvement of the Geissler-System of vacuum pumps", January 24, 1882<ref>[http://www.pat2pdf.org/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

HOUNDing warning

Is it just me, or did you just tag or edit 12 articles in a row that I had created? That smacks of WP:HOUNDING. Furthermore, some of your tags are in error: For example, you added a link rot tag to an article where all the links were functioning. pbp 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The ill-named "hounding" practice would consist of " joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Do not make unfounded accusations of harassment. You do not own articles you have created or edited, and it is only in the interest of improving the encyclopedia that I would tag an article for having no references, only one reference, for having references but none of them cited via footnotes, or for having some or all references consisting of bare URLs. I changed none of your text, and I proposed none of the articles you've worked on for deletion. I did not tag any articles which had appropriate referencing. I removed any old tags placed by others which were no longer needed. You need take no action on the tagged articles, since other editors can fix the problems noted. It often pays to look at several articles a particular editor has worked on, since if their referencing does not meet Wikipedia standards on one article, it may well be lacking on others as well. I have done in the past when I have found an article which needs better referencing. If you point out any of the tags which are not needed on an article, I will be happy to remove it. I object to your accusation of multiple incorrect tags, unless you would be so kind as to point out each one which was placed incorrectly, and why. Please do not remove appropriate tags without correcting the problem noted. Edison (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted my "bare url" tag on the Guy Raz article with the edit summary that the bare URL you used as a ref still works/ The tag was appropriate even if the link still works. It was not a dead link tag. please read Wikipedia:Bare URLs. Edison (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, I converted Guy Raz to Template:Cite web yesterday... pbp 15:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Strangely, the last ref still appears as " https://twitter.com/nprguyraz". I will take another look. Edison (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, you fixed the last one so no refs on that article are URLs. Good work. Edison (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Cultural heritage in Kosovo

Hi. Since you've done a marvelous job of cleaning up Cultural heritage in Kosovo, I have no further reason to see it deleted. I just didn't know how to deal with the mess the article seemed to be in when I discovered it a few hours ago. I'd be happy enough to withdraw the request at this stage or see that it is archived. Zavtek (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Cleanup

I've begun a new chapter in my wiki editing, focusing on general geo browsing and cleanup. During the process I hope to expand many of the stubs I created a while back and get some of the major towns up to decent level. Not sure my thinking but can you delete all of the empty stubs in:

A lot of them also have lower casing redirects which will also deleting. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also Category:Populated places in Makkah Province♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added to some of them like Sena, Yemen, Al Hajjarah, and Sayyan, be careful not to delete any which have been expanded!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a great number of AFDs for verifiable inhabited places and it has been rare (I can't think of one instance) for them to be deleted. Sometimes they get redirected (like a nonnotable neighborhood or commercial housing development) to the town they are in. For non-English descriptive placenames there is sometimes confusion as to which crossroads, river fording, or mill we are talking about, if it is a nickname applied to several such in a district. There is WP:CSD#G7 , a provision for speedy deletion of an article if the sole author requests it, but again I am not familiar if that is done for verifiable occupied places, which most people treat as if they were "inherently notable" while others deny that anything is inherently notable. There is also the issue that someone else may have added geographic info, categories, or wikilinks. If the place exists on a map, then it could be kept as part of the gazetteer function, unless as I mentioned above its name and location are ambiguous. If you are the sole author of an article which just says "X is a village in Y province of Z-land" you could tag it for speedy deletion Edison (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, put them up for WP:CSD#G7. User:Fram deleted some a while back for me. Most of them look like Al Kawr, and even if Anome added the coordinates I think it's still a legit G7 request.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you will add the code {{db-author}} to each one you no longer think should be in Wikipedia, I or some other admin will have a clearer basis for deleting. Edison (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Your reversal of my contribution to Dick Francis

Hi Edison, thank you for your recent message on my talk page.
I think this must be a misunderstanding. Reflex is a novel by Dick Francis. In fact my daughter is reading it in school, so that I have consulted the Wikipedia article. But the link to Reflex in the section Writing carrer links to an article of a novel of the same name but by a different author (Steven Gould). That is why I deleted the link.
The comment this is from another author doesn't relate to the novel Reflex by Dick Francis but to the link target. This is why I believe my contribution was correct.
Sorry, if I made to many language mistakes, but my mother tongue is German. Regards from Switzerland. -- Uli.ch (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Happy New Year Edison!

Happy New Year!
Hello Edison:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

My edit summaries

Hi, Edison. Thank you for your polite message. Sorry if my edit summary wasn't as accurate, as you thought it might've been. Sometimes I inadvertently write "ce" as a matter of habit. In this case, I thought making a more clear and accurate heading fell under the umbrella of copyediting, given that clarity is a recurring criterion mentioned at WP:COPYEDIT. What are your thoughts on that matter? Nightscream (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Social isolation

..is when you get no posts except Signposts on your talk page. Edison (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

No personal attacks

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on [[:Talk:Adrianne Wadewitz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz]]. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
As an administrator, you should know better than to make unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry, but to do it even after you've been warned about it is egregious. Please stop this unbecoming and uncivil behavior now. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your warning is bogus. I can be quite cool and civil while pointing out sock-like behavior. And you are duplicitous when you claim I pointed out socking "after I was warned." You opened the discussion of whether you were a sock in the AFD when you said "Probably most will dismiss this comment as the rantings of an IP and suspect sockpuppetry (nope)." If you claim you are not a sock, it opens the opportunity for others to give their opinions. You may edit without logging in, but please consider creating an account. As an editor with an account you can actually contribute to the encyclopedia by creating articles Please see this page. Please do not waste your time placing bogus warnings on other editors' talk pages. Edison (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The diffs tell the story. 15:25, 23 April 2014 is clearly after 15:17, 23 April 2014. And yes, my prediction that misguided editors would label me a sockpuppet was borne out. That doesn't justify the accusation. 70.134.226.155 (talk)
Despite being an IP editor you are obviously very experienced in the details of posting things so perhaps you could provide a dif showing where you placed any warning on my talk page. If you said something on some other page and I did not see it (I do not monitor every talk page where I ever said something) then I apologize for not seeing it, but your allegation here that I acted after a warning is still false and a personal attack itself. I request that you strike the claim of a warning. You are entitled to contribute via IP, but WP:SOCK says "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia." If your "dynamic IP" changes frequently then you run the risk of finding yourself contributing to some talk page or discussion page where you have previously contributed when your IP address was different. A registered address would eliminate that problem of you ever inadvertently using "more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." (also from WP:SOCK). Your registering an account and using it would make it possible for others to contact you, which is more difficult when you edit under a frequently changing series of IP addresses.As for my discussion of your sock-like attributes at the AFD, if my comment needs to be hatted as "off-topic" then perhaps you should strike your preceding claim not to be a sock, as also "off-topic." Regards. Edison (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"... perhaps you could provide a dif showing where you placed any warning on my talk page" - Um, please read the paragraph above that starts with "As an administrator ...". You'll notice that I did not say I placed a warning on your talk page. You'll also find that I already provided the diffs you ask for. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
So you said on an article talk page that you were a "dynamic IP" editor rather than a sock. That is not a "warning" since I am not able to monitor every talk page simultaneously, so it is indeed a false accusation on your part that I said anything after your "warning." Edison (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for Pete's sake, learn to read, and stop cherry-picking your "facts".
  • At 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) I said "Are you an inexperienced editor who doesn't know that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without any evidence is not only a violation of AGF, but of WP:NPA? "
  • At 15:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) you said "You claim above not to be a sockpuppet. It is not believable that you just wandered by and were instantly capable in placing obscure tags on an article" and wrote "sock" as your edit summary.
70.134.226.155 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You are engaging in obtuseness. You fail to acknowledge that your 15:17 statement was on the talkpage of an article which I obviously did not see and could not be expected to have seen. It was not here on my talk page where you should have placed it if you expected me to see it. Perhaps you are not a sock or a registered editor or formerly-registered editor using an IP address for whatever reason; perhaps you are just a good-faith, always IP editor who is uniquely skilled at the most arcane aspects of Wikipedia, as well as being a master of badgering and Wiklilawyering. You keep posting aggressively on my talk page without adding anything new or meaningful. Is there nothing productive you could be spending your time doing, rather than parsing and repeating false accusations here? Best regards. Edison (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I certainly don't like having to repeat myself. I have only done so at your request, largely as a result of your failure to read/understand what I've written. Wikilawyering? If you say so. 70.134.228.161 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have nothing better to do than to repeat the same nonsense over and over. This amounts to personal attacks and trolling. Please stop. Edison (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

masterstrack.com

The validity of masterstrack.com is currently being questioned Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#masterstrack.com. And editor is accusing it of being an unreliable source. You have used masterstrack.com as a reference in your editing. I would like to invite your comment. Trackinfo (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Wiener

Regarding my edit that you undid, please explain exactly what part of it you believe is controversial and needs consensus. Also, in the future please simply change back the part of an edit that you disagree with rather than reverting an entire constructive edit. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Template to User:Alex Sazonov

I have indeed provided an English translation, because that was the stated purpose of the entire thread. Did you read the thread before templating? --Amble (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

At least, the goal was to provide a translation in order to help Alex formulate his questions in English. In this case I'm not sure the translation helped much. --Amble (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The thread you were responded to started with an offer to provide translations from Russian in order to help Alex better formulate his questions in English. As it stands, the template has the appearance of warning Alex for doing just the thing that you want him to do. --Amble (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There never was any back-and-forth discussion not in English. I invited Alex to post his questions in Russian explicitly so that I (and others) could help better formulate them in English. This was stated in the beginning. Besides Alex's material which was posted so precisely in order to be translated, I made one comment that included its own translation. No back-and-forth in Russian. Again, my concern is that the template warns Alex for doing exactly the thing that you want him to do. --Amble (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, it doesn't make much difference; having made the attempt, I didn't arrive at any point of clear understanding. Thanks, --Amble (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit! I fully recognize that it's all rather difficult to follow. --Amble (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to your vote

Your "vanity" comment, I take as offensive and unnecessary regarding this article. Please take another look at Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and reconsider your decision. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.

Hi, Just letting you know that I’ve added a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. I tried pinging you, but that doesn’t seem to work. Thanks  NQ  talk 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is, how to do it, or the effect on the target, but here goes a test: NQ Edison (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I got a notification saying that you mentioned me here. I was "pinged" by you, using the template {{u}} -- More here : Template:Ping  NQ  talk 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Israel Defence Forces rank distribution

Greetings, dear Edison! Thanks for pitching in on this current RD query on which I just chimed in with a bit more information. The following might help fill in the picture of what you speculated, though I'll admit I'm providing personal knowledge without proper sourcing (which is why I'm writing here rather than on the query). Already towards or in their second year (corporal rank), IDF conscripts are recruited for officer training and necessarily move into a different advancement and promotion track. I vaguely recall this ties in with being asked or required to sign on for at least a six-month extension into regular army. This affects girls and boys, whose compulsory service is two years vs. three years respectively, with girls in combat units agreeing to do three years' compulsory (which is pretty remarkable when we think of it...). So girls like my daughters in the Education and Youth Corps were promoted to sergeant in their second/last year of service. For some years after discharge from active duty they're called for further training and reserve duty in the Home Front command (e.g. distributing gas masks). Boys in combat units DO reserve duty for something between 45 - 60 days annually till age fifty-something. Yes, during college exams periods too, as happened in July/August. By the way - and many Israeli Jews share this belief - I have no problem with a demilitarized Gaza and West Bank having ALL the development and privileges that we enjoy in Israel, which I recommend as a solution. (Some or all neighboring countries might be envious of this but they could try being more congenial and quit the militancy.) The biggest obstacle in the region, I don't need to mention these days, is religious fundamentalism, particularly among the Muslim factions. You're welcome to pray or wish us all a better future. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Color of water may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • water pipes if sulfate reducing bacteria are the cause and never in the cold water plumbing.{fact}} The color spectrum with water indicators{{clarifyme|date=July 2012}} is wide and, if learned, can

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

FYI

In case you wonder where your colon response at the ref desk went. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Edison:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 06:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

BNA access

Hello, Edison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Thank You

Thank You
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ISNA Elementary School update on AFD

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Society of North America Elementary School, I agree your original nomination of the article then, for deletion, was valid. But i wonder if you now agree that the article can be kept, preferably with move to "ISNA Canada". If so, you could yourself close the AFD, as there would be no remaining delete votes and it would be okay for you to withdraw the AFD, i.e. conclude Keep. If you're not familiar with how to do that, or if you do not agree that it should be kept, no problem, just let the AFD run its course and it will be closed eventually. Since the article changed a lot though, perhaps it would help if you could comment one way or the other? cheers, --doncram 01:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electronic color code may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • : 68R = 68 Ω{f[act}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Edison (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Kids in strollers

Hello Edison,
I saw your comments on the RD/M from 5 August 2014 [13].

" ... I see children being pushed around in strollers at ages where they likely would have been walking around holding the parent's hand in previous years."

I haven't noticed that so much, but I have noticed kids of more 'advanced ages' being pushed around in shopping trolleys in supermarkets much more. Not the little seat some trolleys have for 'toddlers' either, these are like ≈10(?) year-olds sitting in the 'cargo' section. Certainly means the parent knows where they are, but leaves a lot less space for groceries!
I think this may be because people usually have less kids now (speaking of Australia here-2.3 average?) so there isn't a much older child to help 'round up' the younger ones. Or the kids are just lazy! --220 of Borg 08:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

BNA access

Hi. You requested access to a British Newspaper Archive account via The Wikipedia Library a long time ago. I took over responsibilities as the account coordinator and I approved you for an account about a month ago. I still need you to follow the steps indicated on the e-mail I sent you, including submitting your information on the Google doc that e-mail indicates. If I don't have that information by 15 December, I'm going to archive your application with no further action.

If there's been any confusion or crossed-wires about this process, I apologize. I understand your request waited for some time before I e-mailed you. I'm eager to catch-up with the backlog of requests and other editors are waiting for accounts. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Happy New Year Edison!

Happy New Year!

Edison,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

I noticed an older discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2014_June_17#Normal_behavior_by_a_headless_cat.3F in which my father's work was discussed. I have second hand knowledge of this experiment since it was one of his favorite stories. He did, indeed, entirely decapitate a cat under profound anesthesia, and found its reflexes to be unaffected. The MIT administration forbade him to publish it in the late 1950s. But even more astonishing is that, as an army neurosurgeon, he had a patient in the VA hospital, a colonel, who had his spinal cord transected accidentally by a previous neurosurgeon. This surgeon had simply closed him up and put him in a bed. During the transection, that surgeon had the colonel under profound anesthesia which entirely stopped his nervous system. The transection failed to produce the usual "spinal shock". When the colonel woke up, he had control of just his head. However, the nurses would regularly get him up out of bed and walk him around. Not only that! One of the nurses had an affair with him and bore him two children all after this transection. It is spinal shock which produces complete paralysis, not transection. Any senior clinical neurologist or neurosurgeon could confirm this. For instance, Tom Sabin of Tufts New England could speak to this.

I don't know if you find this sufficient to restore the passage in Lettvin's page. But I seem to remember that it was the frogs on which he worked that went on to happy lives afterwards, not the cat. This I know firsthand, since I helped him in the lab and used to feed the frogs. Jlettvin (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Edison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Involuntary celibacy

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem talk contrib 20:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Last Post

Hello. Sorry to butt in but I thought that this was perhaps a bit harsh. I've looked through their contributions and I can't anything that I can reconcile with the idea of vandalism. He doesn't say that Sharon is a slag, or that the Last Post eats twinkies, and doesn't even mention lol once ... rather, I think that what we have here are good faith contributions from someone genuinely trying to improve the article. Now, I agree entirely with you that the edits are not usable in their current form, but I do think the editor is, as it were, on the side of the angels. Again, sorry to drop in out of the blue and I hope you do not mind too much. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. You won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree with it, especially having just reread Wikipedia:Vandalism, but I don't think we are going to persuade each other! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you VERY much for doing that. That was very decent of you. Nice one DBaK (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edison/Archive_5&oldid=1168300914"