User talk:Mark Miller/Archive 3

Newt Gingrich GA Review

I'll be working on it over the next few days. I should be able to get it done. Thanks for the review. Designate (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich GA Review (done)

I took care of mostly everything. I left some comments. Designate (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rostra

Hi Mark, I'm writing to you regarding the Rostra Vetera section and Bunsen's description. There is an opening quotation mark, but no closing one, so it's not clear where the quotation ends. Also, what's more important, it seems that description of Rostra Vetera (had only one, hemicycle, flight of steps) have been mixed with decription of Rostra Diocletiani.

The latter part of the quotation could be moved to the Rostra Diocletiani section. Regards, --Mikołka 08:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trevor White (British stage actor)

The article Trevor White (British stage actor) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives of American Art Update!

Hi! I just wanted to deliver a little news about the Archives of American Art partnership project! We have released our amazing barnstar to the world, learn how you can earn one here! We will be having a Backstage Pass tour later this month which will be announced this week, and an upcoming contest in which major contributors can win some amazing goodies from the Archives and Smithsonian, allowing for international involvement! Thanks again for your interest and I look forward to your continued participation in this ongoing project to better coverage on American art history on Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sense and Sensibility (film)

Duly noted. Thank you very much for the review! Regards, Ruby comment! 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Wall-Street-1.jpg

Hi

Regarding the above file, why did you tag it as Crown Copyright? Last time I checked Adbusters wasn't an agency of the Canadian government. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 23:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Thanks for your help with the Occupy Wall Street article. Why do you keep deleting the graph and references?[1]? Have you read WP:OI? You do understand that inline external links are allowed to cite sources, don't you? Dualus (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please read WP:3RR. Dualus (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Agenda editing

Thanks; yes I do. Do you care to explain why you chose to delete all but the author's name and date from the last reference in the US constitutional convention paragraph you were editing? And why you think there is some kind of a policy against inline external links when they are used to cite the primary sources after news sources have already been cited? Dualus (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I am not your teacher and this is not a debate. If you cannot figure these things out and take a more civil manner in editing WITH GOOD FAITH...you should seek a mentor.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All unfounded accusations, threats of administrative action or name calling on my personal talk page will be removed. No exceptions. This is not uncivil behavior. It is common sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion occurring for the Occupy Sacramento article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect the article you created, Occupy Sacramento to the Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Occupy Sacramento for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupy Sacramento is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Sacramento until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reference fixes on Occupy Wall Street

I've written a reply on my talk page.Plankto (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice box!

At ANI. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-authoritarianism

I appreciate your humility. Perhaps we could try improving the very short anti-authoritarianism article over the next few days. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds good.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to leave a comment. You seem like a fair and NPOV editor on the OWS page. Keep up the good work --Andy0093 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS

Please be careful, you are over 3r already. Do not remove any further content or revert for 24hrs. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, editing in good faith on Wikipedia sometimes requires the removal of information for a number of reasons that may require several reverts or information removal. Seldom as cut and dry as you state but if admin feels the reverts to be against the spirit of 3RR I respect those decisions.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Image fair use discussion on Occupy Canada page

Hi Amadscientist. I saw your proposal on Talk:"Occupy" protests for starting an Occupy Project, and noticed the links on your user page to Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content: Would you be willing to comment in a dispute that's about exactly that? I started the Occupy Canada article and have done most of the work on it so far, but now another editor is contesting the fair use of the Adbuster poster in the article, and I would welcome other comments. If you're interested, the discussion is at Talk:Occupy Canada. Regards, Justinform (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Appreciated getting your input. Best regards, Justinform (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy, etc., lede

I think you may have posted to my talk page in error. Perhaps you desire to take up the topic with the another person, perhaps an editor before or after me in the article's edit history.
Best Regards, --Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Go ahead I'm done it's all yours (: B^e——C_ritical 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...but I really don't want it. LOL! Let's just share with others. Your contributions weren't bad so, and I don't remember being critical of you...but OK.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(Transposed from user talk page) I thought you were doing a pretty good job. We had a few edit conflicts, but that's simply from speed not a disagreement on any particular issue of header Etc. When you wish to return to the article I for one welcome your contributions. No two editors can ever agree on any subject fully, but i see you as trying to improve the article. I hope your see my efforts in the same way.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, I didn't think we had a problem just a bunch of edit conflicts and I was just telling you that I was done and you could go ahead and do whatever you wanted to without the risk of more conflicts. B^e——C_ritical 02:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I still hope you return.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, thanks... I don't think of myself as having left.... Like I said, you editing at the same time was not a problem. Edit conflicts are just at most a nuisance. B^e——C_ritical 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Got it. Point taken!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I will just add my say to this existing thread. Amadscientist, it is very good to work with you. I appreciate your good/fair, and so on edits and conversation. Same goes for BeCritical. It is good to work with both of you. Gandydancer (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How is it not OR

If no source says Haack co-authored the doc... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) You are correct. But, there were sources and some are no longer available now. I won't split hairs Over it. I have corrected the prose and will take better care with wording.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Still not following. Why mention Haack at all? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you asking? He's a notable figure mentioned several times in references and in fact is used as a reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just not seeing any connection to the "declaration" other than that he had a similar idea awhile back that was rejected. Also not sure why you say he's notable, though I don't really care too much. Finally, it would seem that everything he's used as a reference for already has plenty of references. No need to give Haack a soapbox IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Haack is mentioned as part of this story, as a source to this story and is as notable to mention as the subject itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinychat?

Do you think it might be helpful to try to communicate via Tinychat? Please let me know on my talk page. Dualus (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No thank you, and it might be best for you to continue to respect my wish for no unwanted contact from you.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How are you surviving?

Hey Amadscientist, these last 4 days of Wikipedia have been crazy. I'm afraid to edit anything until the heat dies down. I think the two blocks will make things worse, not better. I don't know what to do yet regarding the article (whether to work on it while 2 editors are currently blocked) or to do nothing. I've never been involved with something that has exploded into WP:ANI and resulted in two blocks. I've always been able to remain resilient during observance of edit warring, but now that we're in the eye of the hurricane, what will happen after the 31 hours? I was glad to see you change your !vote over at the AFD, and it's tough staying current with OWS, and the articles we have on them. Both articles are kinda messy, but I predict future chaos because we haven't fixed the root of the problem. There are various factions within OWS (off-wiki) and just by reading the FB wall posts, emailing people who seem "in the know" and having a very insightful chat with Dualus, I must say there's definite involvement with people within OWS, and they're actively plotting on how to make the Wikipedia articles "truthful" (and believe me, the "warring" off-wiki within OWS about Wikipedia, is full of threats, warnings, and hate) so I wanted to pass along these words of caution since you've been here since 2007. The various factions within OWS regarding power, control, direct action (including plots to more-or-less control Wikipedia) are all real, but nobody over in OWS agrees on anything, which is why it's so crazy and unpredictable here. With that said, you might want to wear your wikipedia flak jacket because the WP:ACTIVISTs who are currently fighting against each other on-wiki, are actually recruiting people through facebook and on the streets to sign up for accounts, etc. Therefore, this month, I expect the numbers on both sides to grow, and it's sad there are OWS people off-wiki actually plotting how to "hijack" Wikipedia to spread their messages. I watch the OWS pages and I think blocking should not be used at all, because it only fuels the fire and makes editors think one of their "leaders" was taken out. Nonetheless, I've never seen people as obsessed on Wikipedia before. It's dangerous and drives the "lesser interested" people off, such as me and you & other people we've enjoyed working alongside. I guess what I'm trying to say is to warn you of what I've learned from Dualus and people I've messaged on facebook, and secondly that I'm going to quit my involvement on the OWS pages when you quit (at least until the OWS movement is over, and they diminish their suffocating presence here on WP). With that said, stand strong, so I can be strong. Wear a flak jacket, so you can endure the chaos if it grows more virulent, and know you have people like me and GandyDancer standing behind you. 완젬스 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for my first second (Edit:The other one was for reviewing a few articles. I had forgotten about that) Barnstar.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm surprised you hadn't gotten more at this place. You're easy to work with, which from now on is my most important quality I'm looking for, when collaborating on articles! I'm willing to bet the kitchen sink you're either the most agreeable person I know, or the majority of your edits are to relatively peaceful articles. ;-) Take care, 완젬스 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to stick to obscure ancient history articles for the most part and add some biographical information to living people articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the faith and confidence we the community have in you, I'm giving you this barnstar preemptively because we need "old school" Wikipedians who doubtlessly serve Wikipedia for all the right reasons, and always will. Your friend, 완젬스 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for making the essay, since I kinda wanted to make fun edits after the 31h edit-warring blocks expired. It has been fun working on something "low key" again, which you were able to give me. This Sunday has been so stress-free mostly in part because I was able to work on your essay. I think it's a great "balance" to the seriousness we gotta endure if you and I are to stand strong & provide our lending help to the OWS articles (which can get rather stressful) so thanks for giving me something else to do today, since I'm still not quite ready to re-involve myself with the drama, lol. You know what I mean? ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Thanks for your note. I take no pleasure in having been (at least partly) right, but I decided no one was going to benefit from my continued attention to the Occupy articles (for the record, just about every RS I run into, from NPR to the NYT, regularly refers to the protests with phrases like "Occupy Wall Street protests in Melbourne", and I think they should all redirect, NOTNEWS, etc.--but you know my opinion on that). Let me just say one thing here, in public: personal harassment is not allowed here, and if you've received threatening emails I hope you reported them. You can do so at WP:AN or WP:ANI, or you can email someone via WP:OTRS, or you can contact a friendly admin (or an unfriendly one, like me). Tempers can flare, and the issues themselves are important (I am also part of the 99%, of course, and I don't rank very high even in that group), but there is no apology for harassment. I'll be glad to help in any way I can if this happens again. Also, thanks again for your gracious note. All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I have become sick. (probably from not keeping to a decent sleep pattern and getting to old for such mistakes) I also agree that continued work on these articles is becoming near useless by me. It may be best to see what happens and simply redirect to specific articles. Some articles may have notability, but what they lack is length. While a subject may be notable enough to begin, clearly many are not notable enough to expand. The amount off puffery alone makes that clear in my view.

I turned over all the e-mails I received from the single editor and the e-mail I received from another that I think was meant to show me that another was attempting something. But I have no idea if this is anything more than canvasing if even that. I seldom receive e-mails and have only had to use it myself when I corresponded with a mentor here and the one I sent to turn in the legal threats and my apology to you. Have a good day!

A beer for you!

I've been avoiding Wikipedia for two days because of the toxic atmosphere and petty disruptiveness surrounding OWS articles. This beer is for when I realized the beastly dragon has been slayed. I now feel like editing will be a fun, friendly place again. Cheers to a peaceful future, 완젬스 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I kinda just wish he understood that a strong view is not appropriate and that reliable sources and verifiability is the standard here. But, I can use the beer! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation attempt does not extend an apology for inappropriate e-mails

I am posting this here, on my own talk page, in order to keep my posts from "flooding" the mediators talk page or the article talk page. A mediation attempt is being made on behalf of User:The99declaration at Talk:99 Percent Declaration, while the user himself is not actually the subject of the article and simply has a conflict of interest as the self proclaimed author of the document. Here is the mediation post made:

Greetings folks, I am an established editor on WP and I see the conflict going on over here at 99 Percent Declaration. I am sympathetic to their cause, and I have been in contact with Michael Pollok about the situation. Mr Pollok is a lawyer, and not a Wikipedian, so I hear that he is "seeing the world as a nail" as it were. I will try to act in a diplomatic capacity so that everything works out for everyone. I think many of the concerns he has can be addressed within the process we have here at WP just fine. I will keep in touch with everyone about the evolution of the article. Thank you for your efforts. Greg Bard

I stated this:

"I don't think you should attempt such. If the gentlemen in question is the indef blocked account, you could be blocked for attempting to do work for an editor who has been blocked for specific reasons, including inappropriate contact and spam. Frankly....I see no reason to believe you. No disrespect intended, but better to think you are just a little too enthusiastic than to believe you are really trying to attempt to do the work of an editor who has been blocked. We do not work this way on Wikipedia. If the editor wishes to return he should make the proper request. It is not impossible."

An apology has been demanded from me when the opinion of this "mediator" stated that:

"Um, the reason to believe me is the Wikipedia guideline Assume Good Faith along with the fact that I am a senior editor. I find your response a little shocking and insulting quite frankly. I am not intending to do anyone else's work. I think for myself, and am interested in the best possible Wikipedia. I am not a member or affiliated with this group at all, just sympathetic to their concerns. I happen to have no problem with the ban on this editor, it is completely understandable, and we experienced editors have seen this before (i.e. User:Mygarageband or User:Myneworganization make a pages has a flurry of activity, and then either disappears or is banned because of their naive approach to WP.) I have assured Mr Pollak that his concerns can be addressed without legal threats, and he appears to have relented on that point (gee, your welcome). If it is true that there are falsehoods in the article, that actually is a concern OF ALL OF US... I thought. I think your response is completely inappropriate and presumptuous. I think you should make some conciliatory response to me and pledge to work together for the benefit of the reader.Greg Bard "

My response was:

"I have no patience for any editor trying to play a go between to anyone who sends me threats against Wikipedia or trying to personaly intimidate me."

This produced the following:

"If you have no patience, then you do not belong in the Wikpedia community. Furthermore, you are taking out your conflict with this editor out on me. That's guilt by association. I have no idea why you are asking me if I know if there are reasons for blocking someone, when I have already stated that I understand why this editor was banned and agree. Furthermore, I counseled him to relent and he has. So that makes me a collaborator, and you.... well... a fucking asshole. I have about 5 times as much experience here as you. SO CAN IT. I am also a little concerned that you characterize me as "enthusiastic." I have made ONE minor edit to the article, and have telegraphed my intentions to the community on the talk page. Whereas you have actually gotten you hands quite dirty in the article, and have immediately insulted a person wanting to "act in a diplomatic capacity." Project much? I have seen many many many many conflicts on Wikipedia. Your actions here are about the stupidest I have seen. If you don't immediately back down, apologize, and continue behaving respectfully, I will ask ANI to counsel you. Please observe, you are the only one projecting a bad attitude here. All of my approach was in good faith, and that should be quite obvious to anyone. Be well,"

While there is a bit more found here [2], that's the crux of it. If this was a true mediation he would have started with extending an apology to the recipient of the threatening emails. He did not. If this is the reason for the request for unblock being denied...why would that not be as appropriate as retracting the legal threat? If it's a true mediation, why demand the one who was the recipient to the users actions to stay away. That just seems inappropriate beyond the vulgarities, personal attacks and self praise by the mediator. Maybe I am not the most experienced among us at Wikipedia....but I think someone got off on the wrong foot here and I don't believe it was me.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium

How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting a higher assessment of "importance"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for placing this article in the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome collaboration section at the project page. It doubled in viewers that day and has been considerably higher than before on the daily "hits". I am working on it daily and hope eventually to get a B-Class rating. Thanks for your help and input.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

PManderson has demanded on my Talk page that I stop editing this article I originally created. I'm not going to debate the thinking that Aristotle might have thought of virtue. It could go on forever and would be a big waste of time in developing articles. I have asked that he be specific in the "factual accuracy" disputes, however he just wants to debate the issue on the meaning of virtue. There is no real issues in sources or references that I can see. I have answered all questions (in detail) up to this point of Aristotle's view on virtue - which I will not debate. I guess I have to stop editing this article and will go on to others.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't debate the other editor on the subject itself. Stick to how it relates to the article. Editors can say nearly anything and sometimes will just to get you flustered. Many will simply ramble on about the authors and book title and analyze the subject endlessly on the talk page. That's just chat and is not what the talk page is for. The article needs more work and everyone needs to collaborate to that end.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, as I explained B4.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Well, I typed a fairly long response to this person...then started deleting this and that...and eventually just could not press the print button. This guy seems to have a few loose screws...I looked at his contributions page to better understand him, and I might as well have been trying to read a foreign language. I think maybe I should just back off... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment...on all counts. Best for me to just ignore all further chat and if he wishes to contribute in a constructive way things will be fine. If all he wants to do is attack me...I'll just give him every chance to stop and if he can't I'll request intervention. At this point...he's just being annoying. If he starts throwing up more large walls of text to overwhelm the page like Dualus, I doubt he'll last long. He seems to like Wikipedia so I would assume he'll eventually get the point and move on or start making ANI complaints.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent edit to OWS, adding the anti Semitic allegations and balancing with the rebuttals is perfect NPOV editing, well done. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to lede

I made some edits in the lede. Please don't take it as criticism - not that I think you would... In the past I have criticized those that edited the lede without first posting on the talk page but I have learned the hard way that the talk page is so dysfunctional that if you would have done that it would have only resulted in a waste of time. It was best that you boldly added to the lede. Of course, feel free to disagree with my edits, if you do! Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With your deserved leadership and respect, can you lead on the lede?

The lead has slowly ruined itself because we serious editors have been focused on the anti-semitism/nazism discussions. If you've got the time and energy, let's team up and clean up the lede which has sank the article in terms of quality, consistency, flow, cohesiveness, and conciseness. Below is the current lede as of a couple minutes ago:

Extended content

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations in New York City based in Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district. The protests were initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters. They are mainly protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government—particularly from the financial services sector—and lobbyists. The protesters' slogan, "We are the 99%", refers to the difference in wealth and income growth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. The first protest was held on September 17, 2011. Demonstrators created a small campsite at the Park with a governing body that meets within a general assembly. There has been some crime reported, however NYC Mayor Bloomberg has described the protesters as generally "law-abiding folks" that don't cause trouble or break the law. Police have been accused of some improper tactics, including pepper spraying non-threatening protesters and leading some marchers into a supposed trap during a bridge demonstration. There has been strong support from trade unions and a number of academics and nationally known personalities.” In its first month, similar demonstrations were either ongoing or had been held in over 70 major cities and over 600 communities in the U.S.. Worldwide Occupy protests similar to OWS have occurred in over 900 cities. Some commentators have said that although the movement is not in complete agreement on its message and goals, it does have a message which is fairly coherent. There has been some criticism. Local residents of the area surrounding Zucotti Park have voiced various complaints. More extreme claims have also been made including anti semitism but some journalists have disputed allegations.

It's just too lackluster, and has kinda slipped away from our quality control. Let's reel it back in, and make it something we can be proud of, okay? 완젬스 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Amadscientist, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Amadscientist/OWS test page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's incredible! I'm in love with a bot.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A random idea and a question

FWIW, viewing the Richard Nixon FA with its dominant use of images in the center, combined with Ruby's suggestion[3] made me think I should use galleries. But here's my random idea: here's another image from Flikr of the protesters.[4] It is wide and shows a bunch of them with multiple POVs. Maybe if there was an image that different in the article, then a closeup in the lead might be OK? Anyhow, that's something I might work on later for a FA attempt but just wondered what you thought. And I'm supposed to leave progress updates about critera for Talk:Death panel/GA1 (thanks for picking it up by the way) in the discussion? You can reply here and you don't have to reply to everything at once. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't have to keep me updated in the discussion. I'm not a big fan of discussion in review unless an editor strongly objects to something or feels their was an error...or just wants to discuss other improvement ideas as the review continues. I find too much discussion can lead to bitter argument and sometimes ends with strong resentment on both sides. I feel any review actually undertaken without a quick decline for the various reasons that are acceptable, mean the editor see's the article as capable of making GA unless the recommendations are ignored. Let me take a look at the things you brought, but I should say this: I do find the images being redirected to subject's article unacceptable, as making it too difficult for the reader to find the image itself and the attribution, source material and summary information provided there, especially when the gallery contains a text title for the purpose of linking the subjects article. I am not a fan of galleries, but they are not strictly against policy and guidelines, they are just not generally encyclopedic and depending on the manner they are used can create problems for the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, a quick review just now shows a couple of things to take note of. The FA Nixon article in it's current form, may not be what passed as FA. Also there are claims of image over stuffing on the the talk page which only shows that too many images can create a problem. GA criteria does not require an image but if they are used:

(6) Appropriately illustrated

Actual Criteria

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Most GAs contain at least one image, but (unlike featured articles) they are not required to contain images.

If images have not been included and suitable images are not readily available (Checking Commons for images is a good idea), then this criterion is automatically satisfied. If you think that free or fair-use images should be readily available, then please either find and add the images yourself, or recommend specific sources or images to editors.

If images have been included:

Point A requires reviewers to click every image (sound clip, etc.) to check its copyright status. If it is a free image (i.e., is in the public domain, or is released under a free license such as GFDL or Creative Commons) then Point A is satisfied. If it's a non-free image, then it must have a valid fair use rationale that specifically justifies its use in the article under review.

Point B says that every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed. WP:ALT text, although easy to provide, is not required.

Mistakes to avoid

• Failing the article because no free images or other media currently exist.
• Making vague requests for "more" or "better" images.
• Accepting or requiring images which are decorative but irrelevant.
• Requiring compliance with MOS:IMAGES.

Just something to keep in mind. In the past I have been criticized for refusing to list an article as GA due to image prblems. Not MOS compliant, but use of none free content, incorrect or inappropriate license etc.. So, if you feel strongly about the gallaries and image sizes that won't be something I consider for not listing, but the images being used and the fact that they are redirected might.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

I just wanted to say thanks for providing that useful info on your userpage. It'll save me a lot of trouble! - A fellow mad scientist (in disguise), alias Benzband (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your NPOV and improvement work at death panel. Still not perfect, but it's much better thanks to your hard work. Bravo! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's so nice!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work and help. I can see why many changes you made helped NPOV. Some of the changes though, I think went too far in the other direction, but I think I'll sit on my urge to complain for a little while and then maybe bring up specific sentences, statements, etc. at the talk page, a relevant noticeboard or whatever. Thanks for the help, and thanks for seeing the article's potential. After all, I've researched the topic pretty thoroughly. O yeah, one thing though is at the forefront of my mind. I was wondering why you (I think you did) removed both Republican Senators that commented on the topic. Jesanj (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your asking, but I did remove some stuff that wasn't directly linked to the subject. A few coments connected to plain's reaction were not really a part of the subject and seemed undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[5] Jesanj (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the myth, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), said that during a phone call "someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up."[84] Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told a crowd in Anchorage in that it was pointless to incite fear in people by claiming things exist in the bill that do not.[85] Murkowski said parts of the proposed health care reform were "bad enough that we don't need to be making things up", which invoked a phrase Palin used at her resignation from Alaska's governorship when she asked the media to "quit making things up."

In response to a "myth"..."someone" said on a phone call? And the Murkowski's mention involved in the article for being similar to a reponse by Palin? Not encyclopedic in nature. POV and pretty much unrelated to the subject. Palin is not the subject. "Death Panel" is the subject. This was discussing unverifiable information and something only slightly related.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying they were perfect. I'm saying that they can be WP:PRESERVEd by rewording and shortening to include both of their reactions into a sentence perhaps. Jesanj (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They were not removed for wording. They were removed for being things unrelated to the subject and regardless of the phone conversation be referenced, it's still not verifiable and is still not a quote from Senator making the claim. For all we know...he made it up. It's gossip, rumor etc. The Murkowski quote needs to show how it is related to the subject "Death Panels" and not just a random mention about the health care reform. The invoking of a phrase during Palin's resignation speech is not related to "Death Panels".

While the article was listed, it did so mainly because it was stable enough to handle the changes. It could still easily be removed from GA listing and too many alterations back to the former article would probably prompt an editor to do so. The problem with GA or FA for that matter is that people think once it makes it to that rating it remains that way unless consensus states otherwise. Unfortunately it only takes a single editor to un-list an article.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I'm trying to not be bold at this point. Do you think the current text is unverifiable? I think they are sourced political reactions to "death panels" and they are appropriately placed under Death_panel#Politicians. Even if politicians said death panels made them think of purple flying elephants, we may think that is "unrelated to 'death panels'" but it would still be a political reaction. Jesanj (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Murcowski stuff seems fine without the last un-referenced bit from the Boston Glob. For that to be a legit reference you need to provide all the information relevant if you don't have an online version. By the way, I let you skate with not having page numbers for references. I have seen a quick decline over that as part of other reference problems. I would take some time to correct such problems before trying to add back information you may feel strongly about. If I want to locate the reference for the Boston Globe article to verify it, the reference must provide the information to do so-article name, author, date, publication and any information that may be pertinent. Right now that only qualifies as a note, because there isn't enough information to find the article. So, no, that's not verifiable right now. But also.... regardless of the RS, it's not pertinent to the articles subject. It's the point of view that it has something to do with Palin by the author of the article perhaps...but what is the point? It has nothing to do with the "Death Panels".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link: [6] But it's not a big deal to leave out the interpretation of the politician's reaction. Your edit was fine, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with the way a lot of the article was written was that short facts strung together begin to read rather randomly. There should be an order and structure to the section that lead into each other. Also, I see you made a few small changes to specific words. I wish you wouldn't unless you are certain it changes the meaning. The article had a somewhat repetitive use of some phrases and words.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting for an article

Hello ! Could you please take a look at Bulgaria as a copyeditor ? I'm going to propose it for FA status in about a month, I think it needs some attention on style and grammar. Some advice on which variation of English to use would be welcome too. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do see a few things right off the bat. Not really issues, but descriptions in the lede found in FA Country articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It just needs a bit of streamlining because my English is a collection of variations and I am not certain if some sentences sound good, otherwise I think the article is alright in general. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

I didn't mean any offense by not replying to your invitation to participate in writing that essay, and I meant to say thanks for the invite a long time ago. I have to politely decline, though; I've thought about delving into that area for a while but am as-yet still not interested enough to do it. Also, my everyday Talk page comments tend to be book-length, so I'm already at risk of carpal tunnel/arthritis/etc.  ;) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a never ending project with that, but thanks for the note. I never think too much about not getting return comment. Sometimes saying nothing is the right thing to say.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People's Library merge debate

Hello Amadscientist,

The opposition in the merge discussion is rising. Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Copyedit request

Hi, can you help with the copy-editing of Connor (Angel)? I plan on nominating it for GA eventually but need help from an experienced editor. I used a combination of Cordelia Chase and Master Chief (Halo) for MOS purpose, and am doubtful about the prose/grammar of the article. Thanks.September88 (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Usherette Strawberry Time.JPG

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Horror

I do not know what you were thinking at the time, but there was absolutely no reason for you to have ever moved The Rocky Horror Show to some other extremely long and extremely uncommon name. I have moved it back and removed the various references you have made to the supposed official name of the production (having it in block print above the name on the official website does not mean "Richard O'Brian's" is part of the title) and because the most common name anyway would be "The Rocky Horror Show".—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh...yeah. That's the name of the show. Whether it is "extremely long" long or not is a point of view. This can be referenced simply by looking at the titles of the French's scripts. It hasn't been just "the Rocky Horror Show in some time. It is the correct title.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is the new name. The fact is that "The Rocky Horror Show" is the most common name and you should not have moved the article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

I know nothing about photography and wondered if you could insert some photographs of this old manuscript for me. I understand the copyright may be European and from the 1930s but really do not know for sure what I am reading there. The manuscript itself is medieval and is not, of cour copyrighted. It is a manuscript of a long poem written by Jean de Venette and is available here: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F translatable in English. toward the end of the right hand page. There are pictures also viewable when you click on some of the links. They are two long ones visable on the page and others viewable through the link. I am not particular as to what copies of the manuscript you use if any. They are all beautiful. I would like any or all placed in the article Jean de Venette. If you are too busy, I will thank you anyway and understand, but would you please let me know either way? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

If you want to offer me some specific constructive criticism, I welcome it at my talk page. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for neutral tone help on Jammin' Java

I noticed that you labeled yourself as a help for copy-editing, so I wanted to ask for your assistance. I have a page Jammin' Java that is in need of a look-over to see if it meets the criteria for neutral tone. Would it be possible that you could look over the page and contribute to it with a third-party go over? Evan-Amos (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Assisstance

hi i'm some what new here and was wondering if you can help me with a change you made here [[7]]. your change text seemed friendly enough! Bouket (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't use the video itself to reference the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, Mark Miller, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar!

Good Article Award For developing Alexander the Great, an article under WikiProject India, into a Good Article. AshLin (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you owe ...

... User:Cynwolfe an apology. Regards Paul August ☎ 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be possible if Cynwolfe extends the same. I have taken far more from them.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying you'll apologize only if she does first? Let me repeat what I wrote on my talk page: Regardless of how you think Cynwolfe has behaved, if you feel that you have behaved badly, an apology is called for. Paul August ☎ 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! No, I don't need for them to "Apologize" first. I need to see an effort to work with me. Canvassing all the projects because I nominated Greek love for GA and then asking me to stop editing until someone else weighs in doesn't seem to be a good faith effort on their part. It just seems like further obstruction aimed at keeping me off that page. But I am listening to you and will think hard about what I need to do in their regard.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love canvassing?

Posting at projects is one of the approved ways to broaden participation in discussions toward consensus, according to WP:CANVASS. The guidelines on canvassing, however, expressly disparage "vote-stacking," which is defined as posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (sic). I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but soliciting a user who, under his various names, has long been mainly in agreement with your positions might be construed as vote-stacking. I appreciated your statement of good will last night, so I wanted to point out that WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification says such notices should be posted uniformly to concerned editors, defined in part as editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic ... . The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Talk-page participants have included User:Nuujinn, User:Peter cohen, User:Wareh, User:Dominique Blanc, User:Pmanderson, and possibly others. You may not wish to do so at the moment, but I hope you'll cast the net more widely next time. Thanks, and best wishes to you, Cynwolfe (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review that guideline again Cynwolfe. And since you have requested I not post on your page I will kindly ask the same of you. Please do not take advantage of my good nature. But it is clear you are, at the very least beginning to become obsessed with finding fault with my every action. Please take this to the Administrative Notice boards if you truly feel I have erred in my actions, but you should be aware of this:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

It was User:Eyeless in Gaza who began the discussion GA? which you then mentioned in your post and then in turn I mentioned in mine. The two different and opposing perspectives of their opinion was in fact using this user by name. Since it was ONLY us three in this discussion only the three of us had to be notified. You have asked me not to post on your page and I don't need to notify myself. It is a normal practice when two editors are discussing another member to notify THAT user and in a neutral manner...which I did.[8]--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DR/N

Hi, Informing you of this. B^e——C_ritical 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...with all due respect...if you are going to "quote" an editor.......perhaps you should be more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Especially considering your dispute is over quotes!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

You didn't really do much "wrong". It probably would have worked out better if you had talked on the talk page without removing the material, and removed only after you had found a few editors that agreed with you. I would advise that in the future. Right now, it's up for discussion at WP:DR/N. Calmly make your case there, and see if you can get outside editors to agree with you.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am very much seeing how that would have been far better for this situation and in many cases overall. Especially on such controversial articles. In one article I am a major contributer on, I use the talk page much more than editing and wait a good amount of time before I make changes and they still don't always stick. But then talking out why the revert without any explanation isn't appropriate sometimes works. I will try to take that route more often. Thank you for your input.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you had actually crossed the 3RR boundary in this dispute, so I'll be a bit sterner now that I realize that: 3RR is a pretty bright line. I'm not going to block you today (someone else might, though). At this point, you really need to back off of editing the article, and discuss the points, not your opponents.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe at the time I contacted you it had not gotten to that point, but I was indeed afraid the threshold of edit warring itself regardless of the 3RR had been crossed. However...the reason I contacted you out of anyone else...is exactly because you are not afraid to be stern and say exactly what you think the problem is or was with me, and I respect your opinion as you have proven to be a neutral administrator (most actually are as well, but trust your advice to mentor). I take your words to heart. Thank you again!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been edit warring on the Occupy Wall street article. Please do not do so any more, or you may be blocked. B^e——C_ritical 05:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many on Wikipedia that believe an editor that makes a revert on a page they have not weighed in on when given the chance and then makes a revert after stating the edit was not inappropriate to begin with is baiting editors into the 3RR infraction. Admin doesn't take kindly to that either sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to report you, but I discovered you've been blocked for 3RR before, so reported. B^e——C_ritical 06:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have the right to make reports of this nature whether I have been blocked before or not. LOL! But since you took time to look into my last 3RR block you might have noticed an admin gave me the chance to not be blocked but I told them that I made the mistake without knowing the rules and that was no excuse and I should take the block because I should know better. You may wish to take that attitude as well.

Also:[9] In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article. Since there was not yet a consensus even though there was support for the exclusion and no support for it's inclusion, your actions are edit warring in themselves. Since this has nothing to do with you but you have taken it upon yourself to follow this to take me to yet another administrative board you are beginning to wikistalk. I now caution you against taking this too far as it may well boomerang on you.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that after looking a little deeper into your account activity etc., I have to wonder if you are pushing critical POV all over the encyclopedia. You do realise that makes you a "warrior" and may be innappropriate. Perhaps you didn't see the comment that an Admin tossed out one day, but "Good Articles don't have a criticism section" and most articles in general don't. Great care should be taken when attempting to add criticism and I have been following the policy as written in that regard. As Jimbo Wales stated: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."[10]--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Was just glancing at your talk page that you just recently blanked and I see why you may have done that now....you love the DRN don'tcha? Can't get your way and BOOM you take it right there....perhaps you may not realize, but when no resolution is made it's generally because you are in the wrong....not always...some times it's because of a Deadlock. Over time it may become apparent who the actual problem is.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mildred Seydell

Can you take a look at the lead sentence and see if grammatically correct. Any suggestions - see Talk. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for ideas. Its giving us ideas how to improve the lead sentence and hook line. Ideas from an experienced editor is what we needed.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love

I've reviewed this article, and you'll find on the talk page some suggestions on how to improve it. Please consider renominating it for good article status in the future. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My five year Wikipedia Anniversary!

I just noticed that today is the 27TH, and missed my anniversary day on the 25. I have been here for half a decade. Man, time flies!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A Birthday cake for you!

Happy Birthday and Many Happy Returns! Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhhh...thanks Gandydancer! Yummy!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I also hit my 12,000 mark on edits just now! I'm a big boy now! LOL! =D--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street (DRN and ANI, etc.)

Resolved

I hesitate to post this here, but please try to believe I'm doing it only to help. You'e been at Wikipedia a while, and you've edited quite a bit, so you're a fairly experienced editor. Yet, you were very offended by the comments at ANI, which, honestly, is a little perplexing given the nature of ANI. But that in and of itself wouldn't trouble me so much, but why did you give up at DRN? Mind you, I'm not commenting on the merits of the content dispute, I just don't understand why you abandoned the process. I didn't see any basis for your saying that you no longer had faith in the process. Zhang, certainly, seemed to treat you even-handedly.

Perhaps you were already frustrated, and the ANI stuff was the straw that broke the camel's back. If so, my suggestion is to pull back a bit and regroup. All of us get frustrated from time to time at Wikipedia. We sometimes get very deeply involved in our beliefs about what is "correct" and what is not and are upset when others can't see it or don't take us seriously. I know I personally can get upset, even over small things, but I try to step back when that happens and let it go. If I find I can't, then I stop editing the article that is triggering the stress. It's not worth it. If that's what happened to you with Occupy Wall Street, certainly a very controversial article, I understand perfectly. But don't give up on the processes themselves. They may not be perfect, but they are an inherent part of Wikipedia's structure.

Just my thoughts. Wishing you the best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to make this post. Zahng has been extremly helpful and nothing he did attributed for my loss of faith in the process. I am not at all frustrated with the article or even with the editors who brought me to DR/N. They are not at fault for any feelings of loss of faith I have either, and wish to make it clear they have simply fought for the things they feel are right, in the best way possible. I am discouraged by the fact that after being asked to poke other mediators for further comment and to help continue the discussion I saw something I percieved as interferring with that process. Seeing another dispute while engaged in a DR discussion and then editing that article to return the disputed information without weighing in on the discussion at all is disruptive to the process itself. While this may not be something anyone else agrees with, I feel the way that was handled was purposely insulting by a single Admin. People use these processes believeing there is an issue and the flippant manner it was treated was beyond the pale for me. It shocked me and made me feel I was being belittled and blown off in a direct manner that goes against the spirit of this site. I have no idea what the administrator was thinking by treating the situation in that manner. A trout would have been a humorous way to handle it without making any accusations. I informed the mediator and made an ANI which I stated I could simply strike out (which leaves the text to not hide it) if it was not appropriate or if he felt the situation could be handled through him alone. I am disapointed, and very discouraged and feel my time here is being wasted. I will certainly have to cool down but I have also been told point blank by Manning to stay off that page unless I have a real issue and take that to mean I am not allowed to disuss any other ANIs as well. I don't have a history of making bad ANIs. In fact I can only remember making but one a while back in November. If I made others my mind is coming up blank.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be a bit long, forgive me. What sometimes happens at ANI is the OP (that would be you in this instance) focuses too much on other people's conduct (Toddst1) and not their own. Some admins are more blunt, more sarcastic than others. It might be great if they could all be warm and fuzzy, but they're not. Todd reacted in a somewhat cryptic manner because, I'm assuming, he was honestly taken aback by your coming to ANI in the first place. Frankly, so was I. You have to understand that ANI is a very volatile and contentious forum. To some extent, every topic that is opened there requires some research and time by admins, and, understandably, if an admin thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the OP has no business being there, he or she may express their pique in a less than helpful manner. This kind of reaction works out okay when someone is really just making trouble. However, it doesn't work so well if someone is sincere. Think of it like a customer service representative who handles complaints all day long. It's a tough job and they have to size things up quickly or they'll never get anything done.

In your case, what would have worked out better for you is if you had complained briefly about what you perceived as disrespect and then just withdrew gracefully. Instead, you kind of dug your heels in and went a little overboard (IMO), which is what set Manning off. And don't worry about what you think is a blanket warning to stay away from ANI. If you believe in the future that you have a legitimate reason for raising something at ANI, by all means do so. Just be prepared, as Bette Davis said, for a possible "bumpy ride".

I hope this makes some sense to you because I'm just trying to get you to see things from the admimistrative perspective. Perhaps it will also help you in the future. You said you've been to ANI very little, which may explain a lot. It truly is not for the faint of heart. If you want to gain some perspective, just try watching the board for a while.

Cooling down sounds good. Sometimes I find it's helpful to just do uncontroversial things on Wikipedia for a while (sort of like doing dishes - not a lot of fun, but it's relaxing because it doesn't challenge the brain). There, I've already been too long-winded, I'm sure. I hope something I said resonates.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean I have reported only one ANI, I have participated in ANI discussions that have indeed been bumpy rides and....put some of those bumps there. Most of what you say resonates very loudly. I guess none of my words are resonating back, but that's OK....I know I am of little value here and don't deserve to be treated with respect. You have been very respectful and very helpful, so, please don't get me wrong. People like you make this site and people like the other admin chase people away. It was his point and it was well taken. I won't make further fuss or any other ANI reports. I now know what I think means nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

hi i support you i have had similar problems with those people. its just a place where people can feel powerful. i think you deserve respect but youre not going to get it here. i agree. if all the good contributors leave wikipedia then maybe people will see what happened to the site. i wish theres an alternative. Bouket (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

yw. whats sad is that admins like that will still be aruond and they will have other reasons to blame for the site losing anything useful . but i dont know what else to do either, the enough regulars here defend each other and have attitude problems .. Bouket (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a difficult place for many people. It has a purposely high level of complication meant solely to guide an encyclopedic evaluation of information. It can also be an exciting and challenging place where discovery is as important as documentation. Wikipedia expands each editor’s own knowledge and challenges them to move forward by advancing information to make full use of by anyone. But as a community, Wikipedia has another level of complication, and that is the very editors who live within it.

As individuals, the community can be an intimidating place. Whether you are college professor or a simple hobbyist, you have to deal with the personalities that are screaming to come through the limitations of black & white text. People seem to simply want to express themselves in ways that separate their prose from others and stand out.

Since the medium is all about the text and the written word, if you can’t contribute at a certain basic level you will stand out as well. Spelling, grammar, etc. are issues so important to some that it is above almost any other issue for them. So, if they see huge amounts of mistakes they will immediately make assumptions to why. This is true in many, many other ways with people in general all around the world. If we see a perceived weakness, we center in on it.

There are no straight forward rules here. There are a number of reasons for that and I always believed the main purpose of guiding instead of instructing was to keep a level of freedom at Wikipedia that could endure decades of changing outlook and consensus without changing its core value. That core is information. Information as free and open as it can possibly be made. This encourages people to contribute with less fear of making mistakes, especially when one is new. There are nearly no “absolutes” when first disputing or challenging something. This is why inaccurate and even down right lousy spelling is never used against an editor. As a collaborative effort we simply make the correction as part of collaboration…in theory.

Assuming good faith is that one part of Wikipedia that is forgotten quicker than nearly any other. Accusations of bad faith are used as weapons by many without their truly realizing that they wield it in such a way. Editors are individuals, and they all have their own particular, unique outlook and many who have been here over an extended period of time know that it can be a vulgar place at times. Talk pages where editors simply revert back to typing in a manner in which they would speak in real life is common and people take that to great levels. But it’s not a forum and people tend to forget the reason for engaging others to begin with is for collaboration towards specific goals. That doesn’t mean agreeing with each other’s position and should never be seen in that way. Few people understand consensus. A consensus is simply what all contributors have agreed to let stand. What they can live with, without further discussion. Consensus can be gained because of a compromise, but consensus itself is not a compromise. It’s when the discussion on the subject has been “Resolved”, by one means or another with the consent of all involved.

I have been here long enough to know that some editors use tactics (whatever kind that may be) to gain an edge overall in either discussions or disputes and clearly there are going to be areas where small cracks are located with enough grey area in guidelines and procedure for people to simply take that route and defend it at all cost. When this happens we have a number of options, but nearly all of them mean dealing directly with those who may defend their actions in ways that are not always their best options. When these are the actual administrators involved it becomes discouraging to believe that your argument was not discussed in any way by anyone for any reason. But when coupled with threatening tone, accusations without explanation, and joined by others to basically tell you to leave and not come back without explaining the reason, is pretty harsh. When the actual “official” resolved reason listed on an ANI is never explained and itself is an accusation, one would expect some discussion.

Expectations sometimes exceed outcome. It happens every day. It’s discouraging. Sometimes we see things but we ignore it to not add to a situation and become involved or damaged in any way. So we look the other way and we don’t bother helping that person who might also need assistance. That’s all too easy. Stopping, taking the time and fully assisting when someone really needs it, I guess that’s just really hard.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Scientist, can I make an observation? Just one, I promise, since I wasn't involved in that ANI thread at all and only saw it in passing: right or wrong, it's often best to walk away and try not to carry grudges. However, that can be rendered more difficult if users who have little to do with anything come by and pour fuel on a fire: I am talking about Bouket, above (see this section for a motivation--and yes, I'm in there too). Pay it no mind. You're appreciated here as an editor, so don't be goaded into escalation. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you so much madsci for that lengthy reply i will have to read it several times to take it all in. the incident drmies is referring you to us actually at [11] that was what todd considering "hounding". its interesting that drmies does not consider following me to your talk page hounding, and that he doesnt assume good faith after your lengthy talk about assuming good faith. but im learning thats how it is here. its like watching the american republican presidential debates. i didnt think i was trying to get you to escalate anything i was just supporting your feelings. if you took what i said any other way im sorry it wasnt meant that way. i just wanted to say you are not the only one to feel that the people in control dont care and only have their own interests and power high to think about. this response i see here from him or her just strengthens my feelings about this site. Bouket (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't give yourself too much credit, Bouket. I check on Amadscientist every once in a while to see if they got any madder--I think science and liberal arts ought to balance each other out. Like I said, Amadscientist is a respected editor and an unfavorable result at ANI doesn't make anyone feel good. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes someone comments and it encourages me to think about a situation. Sometimes another will join that discussion with honest advice. Don't mistake Drmies reply here as anything but that. We have contributed to a particularly bumpy ANI and I respect him as an editor. But there are no flames to fuel. I got upset and walked away when I felt things got out of hand when I believed I was doing the best I could, not that I was right or wrong, but just there asking. It's not right to walk away from a DR/N, but as the process is now I would suggest that as a possible route for editors as part of any process as it stands even if you just call it “Stepping back”. I didn't start the DR/N and there was, what I really saw as an honest attempt by all involved to attempt to respect that process. There is still a process, as bad as it went, and a consensus that obviously resulted from it. I am disappointed that the ANI resulted in the original “Resolved” result labeled as “Canvassing” and then having it changed to “Not an issue except for tendentious report / WP:Boomerang“[12]. But I take responsibility for my actions for whatever they were in the brief exchange. But I am not seeking to further a dispute of any kind. I think there is always a goal for discussion and that is to clarify and focus things towards a positive outcome. I believe I have pointed out a perceived crack in the process when there are not more logical guidelines towards disruption and a better way for editors to achieve the goals the notice board is meant for. Cross discussion edit warring seems the only thing to call that.[13].

I walked away from the DR/N but I also won’t remove that section from the article, so basically there exists a consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me, Amadscientist, of the 99% declaration or whatever it's called. I was closing some AfDs yesterday and came across it. Since I'm in the discussion it wouldn't be proper for me to close it, but a quick count suggested to me that maybe a merge could be agreed on. But that really is going to be a judgment call on the part of the closer, and we may not get our way. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a section to see if it would generate interest. I think a merge is a good idea.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Theatre of Pompey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Help copyediting?

I'm not that experienced of a wikipedian, at least not compared to you, but I've been trying to work on a few articles. If you're bored, I'd love another eye to help improve them. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Santorum

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pencil Manufacture

I saw your name listed here. For Pencil#Manufacture, please make animation of pencil manufacture using http://i.imgur.com/788bA.gif as example. Or, if you know of someone who can make such an animation, please forward this request to them. Thanks! -- Utmoatr (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dualus again?

You might be interested in this. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

By a strange twist of fate, I am aware of this anon through my edits at Clothianidin. Since I am well-familiar with Dualus, I am almost certain that this anon is not Dualus. Dualus was a pain in the ass, but not "just plain nuts". This anon tends to be, IMO, in the "just plain nuts" category. (As an aside, my "just plain nuts" psychological description goes back many years to a cartoon drawing with the patient laying on the couch in the background going on and on, and the psychiatrist in the foreground writing on his notepad, JUST PLAIN NUTS. I dunno, maybe anyone would find this funny, but most of my life has been as part of the medical community, including psychiatric, and my coworkers and I thought it was very funny. :)) Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I thought it was funny...and makes me feel that you got the joke when I used something similar on my page sometime back with you discussiong an editor who seemed a little enthusiastic.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the Noinclude on OWS template

You're most certainly welcome. Thanks for letting me know that my edit helped you learn a new trick. All the best, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OWS leadership change

I'd like to reply here than on the OWS talk page to your points. First of all, it was a Godsend that antisemitism stealthily removed itself from the OWS page. I'd like to reply in depth because I'm sure our disagreement stems from a stylistic incompatibility. I write like an engineer, and I read like one too, lol. When I worked on the occupy page with you, gandy, etc. back in October/November, I had a lot of "exuberance" in formatting/layout/design which we fought away and took back from Dualus. I used that energy to help energize people into combining ideas & silence our in-fighting. I try to unify people into a collaborative vision and shared pathway on improving the article. To me, it seems like your direction for the article is what I have issue with. Please share with me in depth into what direction you're guiding the article, and how do you envision the "final work" to look like once it's completed? When all is said and done, how will the March 12th ows article look compared to the Feb 12th ows article? Enlighten me with your vision please, my good sir! 완젬스 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OWS article

Hi, I've just reverted a couple of your deletions at the article on Occupy Wall Street; I think the material meets WP's guidelines for inclusions and I'm not sure the reasoning you gave for removing the passages (synthesis and OR, respectively) are correct. The Clover article wasn't a book review, and the Graeber piece (in Business Week) states what I cited it as stating on page 3. I'd like to hear more if you still you feel these inclusions might be problematic. Needless to say, I am interested in both consensus and compromise, in the interests of the article. Best, Sindinero (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The information did not come from Graeber. It came from the author of the article. The other links were not needed and were puffery. In fact the last artilce cannot be used as it's Graeber's opinion from the Gaurdian and cannot be used to support a claim of facts. The first RS source used the Gaurdian article as a reference, but was more relaible for sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the puffery citations. The first reference covers all of the statement and the other two were fluff. The last one actually cannot be used as a straight reference. It is Graeber himself writing an opinion peice and cannot be used as a Reliable source for facts. I was able to keep the first reference with your note intact. The important issue is accuracy to the source claims and encyclopedic value. I think the copy edit keeps the important facts as described and pinpoints the reason Greaber is notable to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's helpful. I still disagree about the inclusion of the Clover piece - to me it seems less a fringe theory than a notable (and insightful) view about the genealogy of the movement. OWS is, after all, a political movement rather than a single event, so what "fringe theory" might mean in this context is unclear. Our standard reliable sources for current events, like mainstream newspapers, simply don't have the focus or the analytic tools to be able to talk about the deeper political affiliations, influences, and genealogies of mass movements; and it will likely be years before reliable scholarly work on this comes out. Clover is both an insider to the student protests in question and an academic, and the LARB is a new journal that doesn't exclusively consist of book reviews, but has a large number of political and social essays. I'd be for inclusion still, but I'm not hell-bent on it if you still don't feel these are compelling reasons.

Btw, the 24-hour block seems totally out of the blue. I didn't perceive you as edit-warring either... Sindinero (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look further into the information from the Clover piece and see if it can be established as mainstream in any fashion. Possibly just another source from a more mainstream media source.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Occupy Wall Street, [14][15][16][17]. Dreadstar ☥ 03:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mark Miller (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I removed inaccurate information and replaced it with information sourced from the reference (the claim that Graeber was the attribution to the claim). I made an edit summary, had good cause to make the change and explained my actions. The claim was not supported by the references. That's just editing. I communicated on this page in response to the editor and made the changes per the source used. I saved the RS citation and even kept the editor notes. That does not appear to be warring. This seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia and the edit warring guideline to block over removing unsourced information I went out of my way to put it back the way the information is shown without attributing the information TO the person, but about the person. My edits did not damage the article; they improved the accuracy of the claim. Blocks are not punitive, but are meant to discourage disruption. Who was being disruptive and how remains a bit confusing here, as the entire situation seemed to resolve itself with explanation and yet the block came sometime after both parties stopped editing the section in question. There is no current conduct issue of concern over these edits and no imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. While there are two separate reverts made (both in regards to the same editor edits) I was not going against any policy in regards to changes i made. They were within guidelines and I believe I attempted to edit in good faith on both accounts. I don't know if the other editor can be seen to be edit warring, (didn't appear so to me) but at the very least the information needed fixing as it was not accurate to the source and one was simply not a RS source, but simply not a site with proper editorial oversite and was indeed a book review page...and a temporary one with a disclaimer (it would have become a dead link).--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

While there appears to be a long-term pattern of edit-warring by this edtior against multiple others, I accept the user's statement that he is editing in good faith to find consensus. Dreadstar ☥ 14:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this seems totally unwarranted to me, not to mention heavy-handed. As the "other editor," I didn't have the slightest impression that Amadscientist was edit-warring. Look at the discussion above; Amadscientist is clearly working towards consensus, and helped rework material that I had inserted in order to improve the article. I would second the request for unblock. Sindinero (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth?? Can an admin just step in out of the blue and block an editor? Shouldn't this be removed from Amadscientist's block log? Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also support the unblock. Amad's edits were fine--looks like admin may have acted too fast without realizing the mistake, but thankfully Dreadstar seems like a cool admin. 완젬스 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

He does seem like a cool admin. I appreciate the support and the unblock. I will make this a "learning moment" to better myself as an editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make a thank you post on your talkpage Dreadstar but I am still blocked, so i will say thank you for the unblock here for now until the unblock takes effect.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just edit from an ip address and sign your posts with [[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] ([[User talk:Amadscientist#top|talk]]) which will show up as Amadscientist (talk) then manually type in the time, ftw. 완젬스 (talk) 2:36pm EST —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

That won't work. It's an IP block. I just have to wait for Dreadstar to return. He's busy in real life. I could email another admin but that would be like going to Mom when Dad won't respond.=) I can wait. In no real hurry, hving the block unblocked was the important issue. These things can take a bit of time.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the good spirited comments! The autoblock should be lifted now, sorry for that added inconvenience. No need for thanks, although it's hugely appreciated! Now, let's all just go and edit! Dreadstar ☥ 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Autoblock unblock request

Autoblock unblock requested. Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it a try now, I lifted the autoblock. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for you most kind note. Wikipedia is an interesting place, full of a wide variety of individuals with different aims and focus, mostly behind the internet mask of anonymity - which can lead to some very..um... perplexing behavior. Sounds like you're on the right path, and I wish you happy editing and let me know if you need a hand with anything. Dreadstar ☥ 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, back

No pay stubs, just check-to-bank, but thank him anyway. Have you heard of The Age of Stupid? That's what keeps me editing — that, and ordinary little dogs. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No...I haven't, but the premise sounds intriguing and believe it or not...I think I actually get your point. LOL! My dodg generally stops me from editing. She will come up and try to jump in my lap while i'm on the computer. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For re-shaping and improving the Rome WikiProject to its glorious state! --&レア (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hard times...

Amadscientist, I want you to know that even though we have been through some hard times together, I do very much respect you as an editor at the OWS article. Also, BTW, I believe that you were spot on in your estimation of the editor that has been involved in Facebook for the last few weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)