User:Wnt/Archive/4

This is an archive of everything from January 2015 to December 2018

FYI
—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the relevance. We were discussing the issue of MEDRS and this is some motion about acupuncture.  Even if defining "complementary and alternative medicine" is likely to be elastic, nor are the "discretionary sanctions" particularly well defined... I'm sure all this must mean something to an admin or two, but to the rest of us it is just another flag and pile of rocks by some river mouth that ArbCom thinks gives it claim to a continent. Wnt (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Russavia
You may be interested in this. It is what was sent to me by Philippe after I was locked. There was no discussion, etc.

A couple of weeks ago I posted this in relation to the abusive use of CU tools by a Commons admin. I also informed the OC and WMF legal. I made the comment to numerous users that my pressing the issue of the clearcut CU abuse on Commons, and the distribution of my CU data to all and sundry (except to me), would likely result in my being globally locked.

Sure, I've socked here on English Wikipedia, and created some pretty content content in the process. I've also engaged in "calling a spade a spade" commentary on those who have being allowed to attack me unabated. The comments about history of legal concerns is fucking nonsense, as is their other ToU violations -- name them you fucking clowns.

Enough said for now. :) 194.181.242.15 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by the whole CU thing. When you admit to sockpuppeting, under Wikipedia policies, it's hard to see how you can effectively argue the CU should never be allowed.  But the thing is, Terms of Use doesn't mention sockpuppeting as a violation!  They talk about fraudulently impersonating other users, which is obviously a more severe thing, especially if they are named.  I remember that was one of the things I paid attention to when they passed them.


 * To do WMF's explanation for it, I would suppose the "other legal issues" part would be the thing mentioned in WMF Global Ban Policy where they talk about "repeated harassment of another user". Their claim would be that by uploading a cartoon by a third party about Jimbo, that you were "repeating" what they deem "harassment", and because it was done on Commons and then promptly linked from Jimbo's talk page, it was "on multiple projects", the other part of the policy they've just made.  Now, if you were behind the IP posting to Jimbo's talk page your case is harder than if you simply uploaded the comic.  I would argue that anyone could have reasonably found that comic about Wikipedia to be funny and germane to our project, and uploaded it with innocent intent, and how can it be harassment to upload what is innocent?  But to deliberately rub his nose in it was nastier.  Nonetheless, nastier or not -- that part of the "harassment" would be limited to Wikipedia, and it is still not an extreme case.  I mean, when I look at their bold print policy I'm thinking of people who out editors, try to get them fired from their jobs, libel them as criminals and make that a top Google hit for them... I'm not thinking comics.  It is still a huge overreach, from everything that I've seen, to take this Wikipedia spat and make it into something that costs us a productive Commons admin and prolific uploader.
 * And it bothers me more that it is using a brand-new mechanism by which top WMF people can bypass all community discussion and explanation. Simply put, the medium is the message.  So long as computers are a hierarchical top-down resource owned and controlled by one person, all the pretenses of not censoring and ruling by consensus are nothing but vain hopes.  Only a decentralized forum, like Usenet or Bittorrent, can possibly preserve a functional political system.  In the end any centralized computing system appears doomed to be dominated by high priests who need not publish any Twelve Tables of their laws, but who simply swoop down without explanation or apology.  This is a lesson we will have to learn and learn soon as the truly creepy technologies slouch rapidly past the gates of Bethlehem. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just clicked here by accident, but then I read the last entry anyway. I'm not really sure what's being discussed, but don't forget about freenet as a modern thing that sort of inherently prevents top-down control of anything on its network :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we need something big and fast, capable of swallowing up a Wikipedia edit stream's worth of data without a hiccup. And I think that Usenet really would benefit from hosting a project that provides a renewed sense of purpose a la Star Trek I. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sock policy is set by individual wikis and not by the WMF, though I can understand the WMF banning someone for repeatedly breaking local wiki policies even if the policies being broken aren't WMF-wide. The English Wikipedia incremental revision dump is around 500MB a day compressed, not too bad, but I can't tell from the above what you want to do with it.  I bet it could be made a lot smaller by squashing it into a diff stream instead of a stream of complete copies of every new revision. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

mass surveillance dyk
I saw further up you were looking for mass surveillance DYK's. I just did about 3x expansion of the Citizenfour article and there's plenty more good expansion possible, but I'm sort of out of steam. The DYK requirement is apparently 5x in 7 days so maybe someone else can join in. I have a bunch of sourcing notes that I can post if anyone wants them. It seems like a good article to be expanding, since the film appears likely to win the best documentary oscar in a few weeks. I've always opposed the DYK program and wasn't thinking about it when I did the expansion, but I can understand why people get into it. Have you read Greenwald's book No Place to Hide? I haven't yet, but its content apparently overlaps the film a lot, so it's likely to be useful for the film article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Paid access
I saw your note about JSTOR charging for publicly available text. Of course one can also think of it as chargeable text having a freely available overattentive - it's surprising how often a free version of something can be found.

But I thought you would be interested in http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-361776905.html - this is interesting for three reasons:


 * 1) It makes a claim to copyright "COPYRIGHT 2009 NewsRX"
 * 2) It is attributed to a "staff writer" of Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week, when it is a word-for-word copy of a press release by Clitoriad
 * 3) It is attempting to charge for access to something of little value, and available freely elsewhere

As I replaced this reference (and an effectively identical one attributed to Health & Medicine Week) it occurred to me that it might be valuable to have a list of journals which regurgitate press releases in this manner.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Misc ref desk
I would be interested in your take on the bruxing discussion which another editor zapped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Does Wikipedia offer medical advice now?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

re
re something you said, email me, about something I've said indirectly there and elsewhere but....since I'm being watched would rather discuss privately, not out of fear though.Skookum1 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More like prudence.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to get into private information here - when I'm on Wikipedia the goal is to get what can stand up in an article for the world to see. I don't expect you to trust me with a confidence (in unencrypted email, yet, which is a laugh!) and I'm not ready to trust that you know the facts for an article better than published sources either.  If this is about other Wikipedians, well ... I think it's much more productive for you to filter the argument at your end by coming up with a list of bad diffs, i.e. specific bad edits to the encyclopedia against which you protest, rather than focusing on the editors who made them.  Especially if they are shills, focusing on them as individuals tends to blow up into the wrong kind of fight really quickly since I would expect a true shill is highly prepared for a fight, may have powerful allies ready to help him, and in the end is free to regard his account as expendable and therefore is ready to make a sacrifice play if that's what it takes. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All too true...and I get irked by people demanding diffs when I raise something that has been going on or went on in the past. What I was wanting to say was an observation and not about any one article but about the whole general thing we are seeing so much more of but has always been around; and have powerful allies, including those similarly here all along.  And yes don't kick a dragon in the knees if you don't have a magic sword, someone I used to know once said.  Not that I do, but I'm tired to being played by their game (of whichever faction/agenda) and by the general decay of this place into misrule by guidelines and procedure and those who run/inflict them.  I've some thoughts on reform and though I've said them elsewhere earlier don't wish to discuss them with hostile eyes looking on. Sad that that would be the case, but after all this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  And mess with, and you....and not just in Wikipedia.


 * Being monitored is a given it's what to do about the infiltration and manipulation that the system has so many ways to do; what was supposed to be wiki - quick and easy - is becoming more and more arduous and complicated; which are guidelines and renderings/statements about them more and more and more; more rigidity, more mechanistic ways of thought, an obsession with numerical statistics (quantitative analysis) and invoking guidelines if Holy Writ, and no qualitative considering of what is right and what is wrong; the amorality is breatheaking sometimes....and that speaks to the matter also, in terms of an account being expendable... just like people. I haven't looked at the list of missing wikipedians lately....it's been growing steadily I imagine huh?Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

e.g. .... like a mantra, or from a manual, and there are indeed such manuals, about such tactics to denounce discussion or the person fielding it; my most recent here and note my recent response on JimboTalk. Same old line over and over; by people who don't or won't read what you have actually said, alleging NPA and AGF against you in response, and criticizing your writing which they won't even read. Absurd or what? So sad how far this place has fallen, but more and more the entrenchment of these tactics is institutionalized into the place and treated as if the valid norm; it's not, and for those who aren't doing it deliberately it speaks to an inability to read and think or understand complex sentences and/or sustained argument. They want it all in point form - 1000 =- that's almost as constraining as Twitter. And presume to be writing an encyclopedia for god's sake. That also implicitly and by definition information suppression and control and persecution/condemnation of those resisting it.

Innocent or by systematic design or professional assignment, there's getting to be more and more of it, and less and less good content and more and more bad decisions and/or completely tainted one. I tire of it, and don't need to hear criticism from people who refuse to read what they do not know; because they do not listen, and do not want to. (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether by lack of reading/thinking ability or lack of knowledge of the subject and issues, or by design or contract, there's too much of it going on and too many people with the power and influence to condemn someone without even ONCE discussing any of the content issues that led to the dispute. 3000 words is fine in a newspaper even rather short, for a magazine.  Makes me wonder how much such people have read, and what they are capable of reading and/or understanding.  Perhaps most just do not; I'm of the opinion this is a semi-literate or post-literate age....but that, too, is by design, unwitting or immanent or by contrivance; look up the Book of the Machines and have a read.... hm no article or redirect on it; look in gutenberg.org or marxist.org or various other places.... it should redirect to Erewhon but maybe no one ever mde oneSkookum1 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref Desk proposal
Hi Wnt, I don't know if you've been following the recent threads on the ref desk talk page, but based on some review of that material, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this: Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice [or perhaps a request for opinion]. We do not give this type of advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], but our users will be allowed to post citations/links to informational references. We hope this information might be useful to you. If you further pursue advice here, this question may be removed.

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you'll get it past them, but I'd prefer a wording that doesn't seem as discouraging to the questioner at first glance. Perhaps "Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question appears to invite medical or legal advice.  Our users may answer you with informational references that may help you to learn more about your topic, but it is inappropriate for us to provide professional advice [link to guidelines].  You should not rely on it as such, because anyone can write these replies [link to anyone can edit statement] and Wikimedia disclaims responsibility for erroneous or even malicious suggestions. [link to disclaimer]" Wnt (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't terribly optimistic, so that's why I asked a few people individually first :) I'm happy to tweak the details, work on the wording, etc. Your wording does seem like an improvement. Part of why I thought this might have some support is that it's sort of a compromise - people who want to police get to put the template up, and people who want to give non-advice responses can still do so. I'll see what the others say, and maybe post on the talk page over the weekend. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe
Would you please look at Talk:Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe? From your comment in Daily rate on the same page, it looks as if you might understand the issue better than I do. TIA. --Thnidu (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand it. The numbers appear to be straight from the CATO Institute source  and are "month-to-month" and "year-to-year" rates.  But when I take the last 12 months 796000001*6900001*125*32.9*27.0*9.39*5.334*3.1254*3.8129*2.2586*2.2083*3.4006 I'm off by something like five orders of magnitude from the year-to-year rate.  I could easily be missing something obvious. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Costas Vaxevanis quote
After seeing your copyedit of Finn Nørgaard I went to your user page and saw your the quote: "I'll say something that's very simple: Journalism means publishing something that others are trying to hide. Everything else is public relations."

On that note I wanted to point out that in Denmark a journalist whose publications fall in the latter category is referred to as a 'mikrofonholder', literally a 'microphone holder'. Is there an English equivalent? Thanks and all the best. Lklundin (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "mouthpiece" is used this way, but perhaps it is a more general term than yours? (Note that despite doing the translation... I don't actually know Danish! :)  So I just hope I didn't foul anything up too badly. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is not so close. The 'microphone holder' is decidedly pejorative, whereas 'mouthpiece' seems more neutral, or no? I think translations are challenging, one has to balance being accurate and idiomatic. Especially translating headlines into English is hard, because in English the phrases and the usage of verbs seem quite different than in normal text. Anyway, as far as I can judge your copy-editing of English articles clearly created by non-native speakers is fully correct. Lklundin (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent changes, such as the one you made to Tintin in the Congo, have conflicted with our verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that this is a Featured Article that was reviewed by may different reviewers. Feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions. Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to tell the world about your noble cause. The article you are disruptively editing is a classic comic book; it is not the place to inform readers about former atrocities of the Congo. If you have any questions I will be glad to discuss them with you. Prhartcom (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why then is it not a soapbox to complain about the 'cruelty to animals' of going on a safari, as you do interminably in your not-worthy-to-be-a-featured-article? I think you're the one on the soapbox, presenting a phony analysis of the comic in terms of generic issues that have NOTHING to do with the historical context in which it was being written. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hell, your article doesn't even explain what 'breaker of rocks' means because previously according to the talk page somebody (I haven't looked up who, but I have a guess) decided to delete the explanation about Stanley. Wnt (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Transfer of copyright
There have been discussions on Commons for a few years about this, refer to c:Commons_talk:Transfer_of_copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Wnt

Thank you for being so kind to a rank newbie. I hope you like kittens. I'm kinda more of a sabertooth kinda person, but I would say that, given that I'm something of a nerd and I like ancient history, heh. Sorry for using person. I'm kinda gender-confused, if you know what I mean. But that's OK on the wiki, right? I am so glad your not judging me for my interest in fashion. I may be a woman, after all. My mom took me to all those shows when I was little, and I could have been a model, only now I got pimples which makes me kinda sad and emo, but yeah, yolo, whatever, right? Have a great day and keep up the good work. Your my inspiration. :-)

Plastic-Al1ty (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC) 

Heather Bresch
It's a non-issue at this point, but did specifically say they were being sarcastic when asked.

If you have a minute, I'd appreciate it if you took a look here to see if that addresses your concerns. As stated at ANI, I never intended to imply that her government lobbying was philanthropic, nor did I ever support such a depiction. The suggestion to add more information/context seems perfectly reasonable to me.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giant tube worm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sessile. 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) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

bold
My original position was that we should not use bold as a rule - glad to see you agreed. Collect (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not really "agreeing"; it's just that if I have a choice between having you bold half the section that uses a slightly darker font or not bold the two sentences that were in larger/darker font than those with them, the latter option is better. I remember a time when getting bold font on a dot matrix printer was a cool new extra, so I can live the lapse. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JustPaste.it, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Islamic State. 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) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Areas of Interest/Expertise
Hi Wnt, would you please consider adding some topic headings to your entry at RD_regulars? I know you are quite expert at some types of biology, but there are probably lots of other things I haven't even guessed :) I'm hoping to get participation up, so that it can become a useful resource for all of us. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your vote
Appreciate your input on the discussion at the Amos Yee AfD. Just wanted to share with you, Yee's views in his video might not be totally accurate. For one, his statistics are uncited and are most likely bollocks. For example, the income tax rate for residents can never rise above 20% - and that's for the wealthiest people earning above S$320,000. But because it's a progressive tax, if you earn less than S$20,000 a year, you pay 0%. Check this tax calculator download from this website. Also, Yee's view that Lee thought "money = happiness" is nonsense IMO. Having read Lee's book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, he establishes even in the introduction that economic progress was vital to have strong and technologically superior defence forces. Having experienced colonial masters over Singapore, in Japan and Britain, IMO Lee was far more concerned about keeping Singaporeans "safe" than "happy", especially since Singapore is surrounded by other nations with different ethnic ratios. Lastly, there are easily 30 more countries with larger income inequalities than Singapore by various indexes. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  03:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That tax structure sounds similar to the U.S., minus the earned income credit and with lower taxes for the wealthy; still, I'd have to be an expert at the two tax codes to really compare how each affects people meaningfully, and I'm certainly not. What's easier to say is that the list of countries with higher income inequality is dominated by African and other poor countries that are not often held up as examples for anyone.  It seems pretty clear to me that both Singapore and the U.S. have reached levels of income inequality that are already incompatible with meaningful democracy, and approaching the point where even the trappings of democracy are unsupportable. Wnt (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few prominent examples of countries with higher inequality than Singapore which are not African or poor. Amongst North/South America, I count at least Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina and Costa Rica which are above the world average for GDP per capita. Hong Kong and Malaysia are Asian examples. Lastly, three are members of BRICS (Brazil, China, South Africa). About democracy, the United States has vowed to embody that, but I don't think [ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/lee-kuan-yew-conundrum-democracy-singapore/388955/ Singapore has ever similarly championed] democracy or political rights. But if democracy isn't acceptable, what is? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  23:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Uruguay seems really out of place on that list, since I think of it as a level-headed and democratic country (thanks in fair part to Mujica). Indeed, I'm finding a lot of sources putting its Gini coefficient at 0.379 in 2012 e.g., though the World Bank is quoted for the 0.45 figure in the article.  Apart from that, I'm not sure what to say here. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just the last bit I asked then. Are you championing democracy or another political system? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I was saying the loss of democracy due to economic inequality is a legitimate concern. Wnt (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Alert
-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it has become so routine to post these, but do you realize this doesn't even say which topic you're giving notice about? So many things have become considered as vaguely related to some Arbcom case or other... Wnt (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic is BLPs, as said in the notice's first paragraph. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Lua/Modules
Lua/Modules, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lua/Modules and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Lua/Modules during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict on WP:RD/S
An unfortunate, accidental edit-conflict removed one of my comments. As this comment was primarily an apology directed from me to you because I was being grumpy, I thought I could just note on your talk page rather than messing with the reference desk page history. Happy reading! Nimur (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know that reading Fox News is asking for abuse. :) But as it happened, eventually a good explanation was put forward, and sometimes it's just interesting to know where the errors in the news come from. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kostas Vaxevanis
Hey,

Random query after glancing at your user page;

I think the quote you're ascribing to Kostas was originally said by Orwell right? Is there a reason you credit it to Vaxevanis? NickCT (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See Kostas Vaxevanis for the relevant circumstance. (Incidentally, when I put it up, I don't think the outcome of the case had been decided)  My feeling is, he earned the cite. :) Wnt (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... Interesting. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

COI commentary
I suggest that you read https://www.(INSERT CHANGE DOT ORG HERE, IT'S BLACKLISTED)/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing and think for a moment about what these people want.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nay, that doesn't work. The thing about trying to be open minded is you know that 99.44% of the stuff you're open to will be pure unadulterated nonsense; it's the remaining 0.56% that pays for all.  If Wikipedia is bombarded by alternative medicine POV pushers - and that's the most that I see in the petition you cite - that's no reason to abuse our COI policy, which addresses a quite specific situation, just in order to shut the door on open-mindedness. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see  and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Interlanguage link
You left a note on Template:Interlanguage link in November 2013, about Link. What became of that proposal? Please can you update (or remove) your note? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shawskank


The article Shawskank has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NEO

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dogsix (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shooting of Walter Scott
Hello! Your submission of Shooting of Walter Scott at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Walter Scott
Do try and pass this thank you on. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your comments
It's also that people here become a bit too much emotionally involved in supporting certain policies (or the way they should be implemented). It's purely factional/tribal warfare driven by a sense of an "emergency" that is felt by one side, but which is not based on a real problem. Count Iblis (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment request
Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this discussion? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to riddle all of this out right now, but I made a comment about the bit I remember at . Wnt (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Political Pressure
Hey, thanks for your input on the Charas article, I think this issue is more about 'Sputnick' than detailing drug cultivation :-) Anyway, they are insistent the entire article comes down which would be completely unacceptable. Tbh, I think you mistook my attempt at wit for self-censorship, I was trying to conflate Putin with his wish to return Russia to the bad old days of the USSR and 'censorship', it obviously didn't work. Moving on, I edited the article after discovering that there were no sources and the entry detailed the manufacture of illegal drugs. To protect Wikipedia's independence I left the article in the main alone and contacted Jimmy for a policy request, best wishes. Twobells''t@lk 14:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[untitled Refdesk]
Hi Wnt, thanks for your answer to my questions on the Science Reference Desk. There were at least two recently, one was about gravitational potential energy. I have replied the other one, concerning brown dwarf stars.Regards, Rich Peterson144.35.45.43 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ADMIN regarding paid editing
You recently commented on a brainstorm that discussed banning administrators from paid editing. A concrete proposal to amend the administrator policy to this effect has been made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Your comments would be appreciated. MER-C 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Research
Hello Wnt! Your username appears in a chapter of my PhD thesis about the progress of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 Wikipedia English article. I'd love to share a pre-publication version with you if you'd like to review it? Let me know :) Many thanks. Best, --hfordsa (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Vision
Hi Wnt. I happened to run upon your comments here. I thought they eloquently laid out the central principles our wikis are based on. I think they encapsulate something very beautiful and important which is overlooked a lot. I wanted to invite you to create a page for them on meta, listing the points about history, revision, archives and the ability to revert every edit, along with all comments being equal - these should be guiding principles for future development that I think most community members would agree with but doesn't seem to be communicated well enough. You can call it philosophy or the wiki way or a vision or whatever you deem suitable. I really hope you take me up on my offer. I'm mostly active on meta if you wanna reply, I'll be happy to help. Thanks. Kind regards. Theo10011 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Visibility of nebulae
I don't want to put this on the Reference Desk as I've been castigated for giving too few references but any field guide to astronomy should say which nebulae can be seen with a telescope without a camera, those are by necessity naked eye visible when right next to them. Okay I do have one reference for that, though introductory sounding at the beginning. It's the colors that are hard to see without long exposures (I think some people just "photoshop" the red channel to the exact red of hydrogen-alpha, the green channel the shade of the big greenish emission line.., though you can Google Oxygen III filters, Hydrogen-alpha filters and so on which are used for more accuracy). Usually they look gray to the eye. Some needing perfect conditions to glimpse but some are pretty bright. I saw the Ring Nebula in a big 14 inch scope and even only 4 miles from Times Square it was easy to see (though very dim). When the outreach team went to a much shorter eyepiece I thought the surface brightness drop would surely make it invisible but it barely survived letting me stare at it for a while. It's awesome to see a large (apparent diameter) planetary nebula so dim that it's on the very knife edge between existence and non-existence, you have not seen what "ghost" means till you've see that. In space the sky is a little darker (no airglow, atmospheric extinction or scattering) and telescopes don't transmit 100% so the list of things that a book says doesn't need astrophotography to see is a lower bound. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclic guanosine monophosphate–adenosine monophosphate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herpes virus. 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) 11:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Beta Uprising
Thanks for your suggestion, I've followed up on it. The sources are indeed a bit thin and a lot of the text is still unsourced, but here's hope more media will treat it soon. Darth Viller (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the picture at BU that you had moved. The image was inserted in the first place by vandals who came from /r9k/. Darth Viller (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"tyranny of copyright"?
I gather you don't write for a living, nor know anybody who does so. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Copyright is a system of taxes that is supposed to compensate authors. We can design a better system of taxes that compensates authors more and unproductive middlemen less, that is equally answerable to reader choice, which does not ration what we read.  It isn't that complicated.  Instead of having to pay a royalty on a per-item basis, people have to pay a certain figure, based on their income, each year.  They can direct this to any funding organizations for writing/arts/music they wish, or even designate individual recipients for the tax money themselves.  However, the amount from one person to any one recipient has to be capped at a very small level, to prevent corrupt deals and also as a matter of ensuring that a large number of artists are able to do their work rather than one raking in all the money.
 * Copyright is a doomed system. News outlets are folding.  Books and movies are becoming easy to pirate en masse.  Nothing short of a perfect Orwellian state can slow that down.  Meanwhile, even working as it "should" be, musicians are reduced to "indentured servitudes", signing low-paying 30-year contracts just to get access to the market.  And a third of all our culture is taken over by advertising meant to encourage the sort of consumerist culture Pope Francis disapproves of.
 * We don't need any of that. You can say that a tax like I suggest is "bureaucratic", but can you seriously tell me that copyright lawsuits aren't?  You might call it heavy-handed, but is it as draconian so as a SPDA raid?  No.  The copyright tax seemed like a tolerable approximation of justice when books were expensive and it didn't affect how much people could read very much.  But it was never right, because it conflicted with freedom of speech.  That's the fundamental right, whereas copyright is just a broken program. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation on the talk page of the Founder
I know it is quite difficult to convey irony through just the printed word. In good faith you were helpful in pointing out how the encyclopedia can be misused. I should probably let you know that I create content and edit medical articles with excellent citations to systematic reviews and meta-analyses (when available) along professional, graduate level texts. My reversion rate is pretty low in content creation. I guess I am only responding here on your talk page because my post to Wales talk page turned into a slightly embarrassing tutorial. Not really your problem, but mine. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I tend to reply to the topic, not the person - I realized you knew better, but as you saw further down, some other people were not as clear on some of these points. Wnt (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputation management companies creating editor dossiers
Hi, on Jytdog's talkpage you recently said this: "...reputation management companies and companies that pay editors will have a permanent advantage over ordinary volunteers who can't download their own copy of the database and create dossiers on people." As someone who's trying to better understand and document our "challenge" with the PR/SEO/RM industry (see my essay), I'm genuinely interested in knowing more about this. Is it a hypothetical or do we think this is really going on at Wikipedia? - Brianhe (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hypothetical. I have absolutely no evidence for it.


 * However, large networks do exist which actually do seek to make money by controlling community decisions.  This seems like an attractive tactic for them to use ... but only if administrators allow it to become usable. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Every once in a while I get a glimmer of accounts catering to our preferences/prejudices (e.g. personas suggesting they're from a region of an active anti-COI volunteer) but nothing solid yet. – Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of a promotional article I deleted today and the editor came back with, "But I was told that every company needs a Wikipedia page!" And I believe he was told that, along with advice about setting up a Facebook page and everything else involved with having an online presence.
 * So, there are social media consultants or reputation management consultants or whomever advising people who start new companies that they need to create a Wikipedia article. And probably charging a nice price for the advice. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm enough of an inclusionist to just about agree with that ... the catch being, by "needs" I'm as often thinking of "...to say what the scam is, who their competitors are, how you can improvise to do without their product" as the thing the marketer has in mind. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Inxight
Hi, you added some material to the Talk:Inxight page which mentions the Inxight and Endeca text systems. I don't see how that information is relevant to improving the article, so I've "collapsed" it. Of course, any organization that is doing large-scale text processing work is going to use text analysis and search tools. But I don't see that it's useful to add the customer list of Inxight to the article... unless, say, we find that 60% of Inxight's revenue comes from one agency. --Macrakis (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Centre for Equality and Inclusion

 * Centre for Equality and Inclusion

Hey there Wnt,

I saw a redlink on your userpage and decided to create an article for it.

Please see Centre for Equality and Inclusion.

Feel free to improve the page, add categories, expand, etc.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Re your comment
Regarding this, I was on Arbcom at the time; the incident definitely happened as described, and the admin in question is no longer an admin and banned from Wikipedia. I don't feel it's appropriate to name the admin involved; Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban is still (rightly) Wikipedia policy, and there's nothing to be gained by raking over old incidents. ‑ iridescent 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm relieved to learn this isn't something recent. Wnt (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Profligate prostitution party of apostates.
The Daily Beast was far from the only one who got fooled again. Even reputable sites like CBC, The Guardian and TIME bought it. The New Yorker confirms the translation was SITE's. But the vast majority of them omit mentioning this, instead putting it on ISIS. The scary part is this is normal. No way to measure how much of what the news says any Islamist group since 2001 has said or done is actually embellishment or complete fabrication. Probably not all of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, November 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * Many sites quoted the dubious translation, but the Daily Beast actually went out and ran with it, saying "ISIS targeted Muslims in Paris" It really was a mistake for them to publish a whole article in their own voice assuming the veracity of the translation of something preposterous, and a particularly unfortunate one since Muslims in France and elsewhere right now have enough problems.  For most people (as for the unsung SITE translator) the whole meaning of "apostate" probably flew right over their heads. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) (note to passersby: this was discussed at [])

BLP
Hi, I removed your abortion comment, it should be clear what you imply is a violation of WP:BLP. Please don't restore it, I really don not want to have to take this to the BLP notices board. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reported the behavior to WP:BLPN. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brennan. 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) 09:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk question on conduction electron : atom ratio
Hi Wnt,


 * Wnt, thank you very much! You seem to have put a lot of time into this.  I'm stunned!


 * It will take me some time to work through this myself. While I could not understand the Wikipedia articles Jayron linked to, I did get a sense that it depends on temperature.  For say copper, for which you calculated 0.96 electrons per atom at presumably room temperature, (compared with 0.995  or unity from Jayron's data, which elsewhere he said would be very wrong) what would it be at -200 C? at +200C?  If you have a feel for this, can you comment on the Refrence Desk?


 * The page you linked in the second line of your answer is a dead link - clicking on it gives a 404 page not found error.


 * Again, thank you very much for the time you spent on this. So much better than somebody else telling me I'm not entitled to an answer, or another person who told me I don't need to know.

And what the third peanut was on about with "WickWack" and 2012 I have no idea.

I discovered the Reference Desk some months ago. The Language page is very good, but the Science page seems to attract vandals randomly deleting things, people who don't understand the topics, and nut jobs who do anything but help the persons who ask the questions. 124.178.179.79 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry
Would you be interested in turning your comments on the Feinstein bill at User talk:Jimbo Wales into an op-ed for the Signpost? Gamaliel ( talk ) 05:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I had been hoping to get more response to work with, but I shouldn't wait very long.  I think I should also rework what I wrote into sections rather than the numbered list format.  I haven't actually written content for the Signpost so any suggestions would be much appreciated! Wnt (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not sure I have any general ones.  Just go with your instincts and see our archives for some previous examples.  Once you have a rough draft we usually put it in a google doc and we provide you with comments, suggestions, and copyediting.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Words
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography whenever you have a few minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Arnnon Geshuri
Was the WMF board fully aware of Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google when they approved his appointment? In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. Geshuri helped manage that collusion for Google. A class action lawsuit settled in September, 2015 forced those companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Geshuri was directly involved in the ugly and humiliating termination of a woman who did not comply with the illegal scheme. He was chastised by federal judge Lucy Koh for attempting to pull Facebook into the conspiracy, and threatening retaliation if they didn't. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note on User talk:Jimbo_Wales re:azWiki
Hey WnT,

I just wanted to let you know I've removed the section on Jimmy's talk page your responded to about AzWiki. For the record the WMF worked closely with the community after the concerns were raised but beyond that I can't say much more. I'm happy to talk a bit more if you'd like on IRC or via email but I think you're instincts were right when you said it may not be best to have it all out in the open especially with names. Jalexander--WMF 02:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I made only the most rudimentary observation from the presented text in that conversation, so I really don't have any special claim to information on the case that isn't public knowledge. I don't know what the use is for me to find something out from you unless I feel free to go on and post it publicly in some online forum - I don't want to imply that I would keep something in confidence simply so that I alone could know it, without being able to do anything about it. Wnt (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood :) Thanks for your understanding. Jalexander--WMF 07:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Conserved homologies
Worth remembering that a conservative approach is needed. For example:


 * This applies to entities foo, bar and baz.

the changes


 * This applies to entities such as foo, bar and baz.
 * This applies to entities: foo, bar and baz etc.

should not be changed to


 * This applies to entities such as foo, bar and baz etc..

This requires understanding of scoping qualifiers.

Similarly wiki-specific issues such as two additions of a reference with the same name.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC).


 * It's true that I glossed over a lot - I didn't really want to overwhelm the page. To begin with, the usual purpose of a DNA or protein alignment is to get at a conserved sequence, whereas here we're looking for the non-conserved portions of each edit.  And of course, as you say, when edits directly collide within a sentence or sometimes even within a paragraph there can be trouble.  But even without a minimum diagonal length, provided the editor gets suitable color coding on the example above, it is easier to work with than the current two-version system.


 * What gets trickier is that we would like to be able to diagram movements of text as part of a diff, so that you can look at it and see that the other person moved this paragraph that you edited, or vice versa. If the movements are complicated enough, that might be trouble.  But... the nice thing here is that we can always give up.  We just throw whatever can't be figured out back as an old fashioned edit conflict.  This is a quest for the ninety percent, not the hundred.


 * The references with the same name are unlikely to happen. I think it can be readily defused by automatically appending something to the name of an added reference when it duplicates an existing reference - actually, this is no different than doing/suggesting it for a normal non-conflicting edit, come to think of it.  But it doesn't seem like a big problem that we don't have that now. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Melena
Wnt,

We briefly interacted in regards to Toxoplasma in the Reference Desk. Your comment about the entry on Melena being less-than-ideal got me interested, but I don't know how to reference a textbook in Wikipedia.

Any help would be appreciated, thanks greatly,

PiousCorn (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The George Osborne article
Hi! I noted that you have had some, er, disagreements about this article, and thought that you may like to add your opinion to my rather forthright comments on this, which appear in the Tax credits section. All the very best to you! Boscaswell  talk

Should the current artist's impression be removed from the Planet Nine infobox?
Regards,  <font color="#000000">nagual <font color="#ABAB9D">design  15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)
According to leaked internal documents that have been authenticated, the Knowledge Engine was originally intended to directly complete with Google. This is an absolute undisputed fact. There cannot be a disagreement over the facts. That would be historical revisionism if any person claimed the Knowledge Engine was not originally intended to compete with Google. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement
Hi, I just saw that you're interested in making the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta. I'd love to hear your ideas and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The elephant
Given your reference to the elephant story, you might this interesting, making the same point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A rational argument?
While on the subject of 999..., you might enjoy taking a peek at the tangentially related Six nines in pi, particularly Doug Hofstadter's quote. -- ToE 14:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America
Hi Wnt, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek . 69    talk  01:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Kind request for correction of a typo
Hi Wnt, I thought that talking about typos would be such semantics that it would not be fitting under the topic I started on Jimbo Wales's talk page, so I decided that I would leave a message here on your talk page. I'd like to ask if you could be kind enough to correct the typo you made when writing my name. My first name is Ylva — the second letter is L. (I used a capital letter here to make it more clear.) I can see why it's so easy to get mixed up — after all, in sans serif fonts capital I (India) and lower case l (Lima) often get mixed up. (The code words of NATO phonetic alphabet used for clarification.) Thank you in advance! —Ylva Carennah (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have that excuse - when I look, I see the difference. The blindness was lexicographical - I just didn't think an "l" could go there! Wnt (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem! I can understand the reason — whereas in English y is considered to represent a vowel sound only in certain cases, and always a consonant in the beginning of the word, both in Finnish and Swedish, y is always a vowel. In Swedish, it's pronounced as a near-close near-front rounded vowel, just like ü in German. In Finnish it's almost similarly pronounced, as a close front rounded vowel. So I can see why it would be difficult to consider it as a vowel, if one doesn't speak Finnish or Swedish. :) As my name is Swedish, I have sometimes to explain the pronunciation even to other Finns, even though the reasons are different. So I'm used to seeing my name miswritten, or hearing it mispronounced. Thank you for making the correction; it's always nicer to see one's own name written correctly. —Ylva Carennah (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama
Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetic quantum number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Separable differential equation. 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) 09:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding...
...this, the reason the OP used dashes was to foil the edit filter. Just in case you didn't already know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. Computers should not be in charge of what people coming here can post.  Use an edit filter to have an edit looked at, sure - but not to order people around. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an effort to foil the Jew-hating troll that keeps popping up here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't especially like it either. I would rather just call him what he is: a dirty Nazi pig. But they probably consider that a "personal attack". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

:-)
My brain is a bit odd, but you probably noticed that already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Jimbo's page about GMO issues
I have been working on a reply to this comment you made. I was close to posting it, but I noticed the thread is archived already. Would it be better if I post it here or back on Jimbo's page? I'm not sure what the protocol is for continuing a discussion when it is archived by a bot and someone wants to keep discussing. On article pages, sometimes I have reverted the archiver for issues unresolved, and no one has complained, but I was never sure if that was frowned upon. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do really depends on the comment. If it's sort of a new take on the thread a new one might be needed.  If you un-archive a thread to respond to it, well, it's a big thread, but if it's mostly relevant it might make sense.  Still, I'd generally lean against that option because generally you can stably link to the archived thread and avoid the confusion.  You might also have an idea for which a specific article talk page is relevant, or a policy idea that could have its own RFC... etc.  And of course you can reply here and perhaps ping some others in the conversation you are interested in. Wnt (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Desk: revert
I reverted the IP's post, because it was a sock of a banned editor (Vote X). GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if a banned editor brings a useful reference, the traditional WP:IAR rule is to value the reference. But if you wish we can rework the question to omit the IP data, for what it's worth, and keep the reference. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You may do as you wish. Personally, I don't value any posts or edits by banned evading editors. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to me people developing tolerance to arsenic by eating it is interesting. Everything else is just paper shuffling.  (I revised my reversion to include just the link and my description on it, which I hope is more accurate) Wnt (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that's he's back, at the Humanities desk, as well. Anyways, I'll leave all that with you. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like I'm not the only one objecting . We can't stop everyone who evades a block or ban by using new IPs, and if the edits themselves are good, we shouldn't feel bad that these are among the ones we miss. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You have mail at WPO
link... best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI
We didn't quite edit at the same time, but I hadn't seen your response when I opened the page to edit, and my response ended up before yours. I don't think it is a big deal, but I will relocate mine if you wish.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't have mattered under the best of circumstances... and this, alas, is not that. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of AN/I
You either have the greatest amount of patience of any person I have ever met, or, naivete (given how long you've been around I'm leaning towards the former). I have no idea how it is that you are not getting frustrated with that thread. I read her comment about 'accusing others of creating a toxic climate' about ten times and I could read it no other way than I described. You somehow managed to take a lesson from that. Not to mention that I don't think I've ever seen a thread of that length discussing any topic, let alone on AN/I. That one thread is literally longer than most articles on Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, there are a few factors here, not really patience. To begin with, I think people around here are far too eager to throw out editors.  They act as if there's someone else waiting at the door to get in, but it's not true.  We can throw people out from these bitter arguments, but then for the next bitter argument it becomes all the less likely that any neutral third parties will wander in to defuse things, which is what we really need.  The small Wikipedias generally are not doing very well - every now and then you see someone desperately begging Jimbo in broken English to throw out their crooked admins, and nothing ever comes of it.  That could well be our future on this one.  Also, at heart I think she's trying to point out things that have been reported in the news and are true, to counter a bias that the editors so hot to get rid of her seem eager to maintain.  I mean, the basic gist of the story is that supply side economics doesn't work - something that I think is very widely acknowledged in this day and age.  She's fundamentally trying to do the right thing, just in a very sloppy way.  As for the length... well, looks like it's up to 107k, but most of the credit for that goes to a few vocal opponents, which is something to bear in mind.  All in all... I'd far rather see her resolve to be more careful and have someone neutral keep an eye on whether she's succeeding than any kind of topic ban.  And I really am afraid that ANI is going to rush to ban her from discussing what's wrong with these articles with neutral parties who might take her hints as to where to improve them. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While I understand much of your argument above there is one thing I would like to address specifically: "I think she's trying to point out things that have been reported in the news and are true", unless they're being reported in reliable scholarly sources other than the news I find it very difficult to trust that information based on news reports alone. There are a lot of things reported in the news that are so riddled with inaccuracies that it beggars belief. I do agree that in many cases people are quick to try and pull the trigger, I noted that in AN/I when Phmoreno asked for the ban against EllenCT to be enacted due to "failed mediation" even though none had taken place. I too would far rather see EllenCT make an effort to co-operate, but, she needs to make a conscious effort to listen and when she makes a mistake she needs to acknowledge it. For example, despite numerous editors repeatedly correcting her mistakes (including myself), that were by no means trivial, and pointing out the errors in her interpretation of some of her own sources she responds with "I'm confident that the discussion clearly shows that I haven't misapplied, misused, or misinterpreted sources beyond the occasional trivial mistake, and I have clearly addressed the central point of all the other arguments." I don't mind mistakes, even some incompetence, these can be corrected but only if she'd listen when called out on it. I think that's part of the reason why some editors have pushed so hard to ban her, because they just can't cope with it anymore. This issue according to some of them has been going on for years, I wouldn't have minded it going to ArbCom to give her one last chance but with 11 support and 1 oppose (currently) for a topic ban, I'm not sure that she'll get the chance. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the vote is also heavily in favor of arbitration, so if she wants to take that route I would assume she still can - at least, it would create some presumption in favor of a case. At this point the case wouldn't really be about her avoiding trouble, but rather to see if she can document serious issues about someone else. Wnt (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote for arbitration is at 4 support and 2 oppose, which is in favour of support overall. I don't know that she'll be able to document a strong case against somebody else to be honest but that's down to her. That said, I was surprised to see somebody decide to go around (or ignore) the first proposal before it was concluded to start a second one. I didn't realize that was acceptable conduct. It struck me as being sort of like "I don't want arbitration, I just want a ban because (insert "subjective" reason here)" Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a very good design to say that anyone can propose arbitration in an ANI thread and bring everything else to a stop. I mean, there's a way to propose arbitration, by starting a case request; even if that were done it would be up to the ANI people to decide whether to withdraw after seeing whether the votes that mattered there (the arbitrators) were for it.  But as I said there, I'm mistrustful of relying too much on the arbitrators in political issues. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Mr. rndude's comment, and I can exercise patience. Unlike it seems with NS36, I have a life. Thanks for your perseverance. This has been unnecessarily time-consuming. Activist (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: José Gregorio Vielma Mora (June 27)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:José Gregorio Vielma Mora and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jos%C3%A9_Gregorio_Vielma_Mora Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jos%C3%A9_Gregorio_Vielma_Mora reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. Totally forgot about my Spanish translation exercise there.  That draft actually came straight from es.wikipedia, where it is still a live article.   I don't see any more references there than it had when I did this in 2014.  I think I might actually have left it as a draft because of the poor sourcing, though it's possible I just plain forgot to do anything more with it. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Wnt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Harsh trimming?
You doubled, if not tripled the size of that section. I don't know where the "harsh trimming" you said was coming went, but it wasn't in that article. I truly appreciate the work you put into it, but I really don't see it as an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agreed with some of your reductions, such as the bulk of the part about the DHS. You're trying to keep one section at 5% of what it should be to stay "even" with another section that's 5% of what it should be.  This is meant to be a massive article overall.  G4S is apparently the second largest private employer in the world, so there must be some content about the non-Mateen part of it.  But for now, today, we were interested in getting together the story of what happened in response to this, which is something that has a major effect on perception of the company. Wnt (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. The answer isn't to put more material in so that this looks smaller. I think that the majority of this should be in the Mateen article or the article devoted to controversies involving G4S. If you look at the parent company article, it's a single sentence and a hatnote directing to the controversies article. I'm going to take a day or two to think about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yuck! I had no idea there even was a Controversies surrounding G4S article until just now.  This is terrible design, because we already have a split based on the subsidiary (G4S Secure Solutions); I was viewing this as the most specialized article because it doesn't even link to the "controversies" article.  If we have to have a POV fork (which I strongly don't think we do) it should be at the lowest level, i.e. Controversies surrounding G4S Secure Solutions.  Anyway, I've admittedly been using "G4S" in the text (per sources) often where the subsidiary is really meant.  There's even an old complaint on the talk page that the article is "American-centric".  Anyway, it'll be important to sort out the high-level structure more clearly. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Barnstar for you

 * Well, I'm flattered, but that article still has a very, very long way to go. For example, yesterday I found out half of it is about a G4S Government Services division that was split off in 2011 and has since been sold, to be reorganized as Centrex, none of which is mentioned.  So when I say this article needs work, I mean it still is confused about even the most basic basics. Wnt (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Curious, I looked it up and couldn't find anything on Centrex, except a dozen similarly named companies. Then I discovered the spinoff is Centerra.{http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85942-g4s-government-services-sold-to-form-new-company} You're right, of course, the article needs to be scaled back to reflect those services which are no longer provided and removing mention of those federal government agencies that have gone to the new provider. Activist (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I hadn't added all that yet.  I was working on some of it on the draft page.  I think these spinoffs can be handled in summary style, but I have to decide whether it's worth trying to make a new article for Centerra at this time or not...  I won't do it right away; I'll try to just explain the situation in situ first under what in the draft article is a "divestments" section. Wnt (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No reason to be sorry. I'm not being critical at all. I hugely appreciate all the work you do and have no particular expectations of further production. Activist (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi!
I left some comments on Reference Desk/Science! Mage Resu (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Again. Mage Resu (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And Again. Mage Resu (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Kerri Riverra is eugenically suppressing atypical minds with her "miracle cure"! Something has to be done! Mage Resu (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing is impossible in biology but this I highly doubt. Wnt (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This stuff is killing people! No matter how much you correctly believe that it's a scam, there are still people who are actually buying into it and killing their kids! Mage Resu (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

New reply
Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 July 10 Mage Resu (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Request
Hi, and thanks for pinging me here. I see you are worried by my attempts to remove poor sourcing from BLPs. I would appreciate it if you do not understand or have problems with any of my edits, that you raise it with me in the first instance at my user talk. Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
thanks for adding my silly tao te ching (dao de ching) box to WP:Dao of Wikipedia. it was fun to create.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Jimbo's page
Hi Wnt:

In this comment, I would like to hear more about the scandal(s) you are talking about. Was it in the news? The only things I know of off the top of my head are: (1) WifiOne (2) BP (3) politicians and editors from DNC or RNC editing their own or their opponents pages (4) police editing articles about police shootings. And when you say pro-company, did you mean pro-small-biz? Finding Wikipedia in the news is hard with Google since it always brings up Wikipedia articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia for further information. Wnt (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I stumbled upon that article once and haven't seen it for some time.  I know there is some big discussion about COI and at harassment page.  Are they trying to address problems like those or chase off small businesses?  I agree with your position on Jimbo's page, that problems like you describe are the most concerning.  I don't care much if the 15-seat coffee shop puts up their actual menu and this "travesty" is not noticed, as long as it is not filled with fluff saying its the best, most popular, etc. restaurant in the area as if that is a fact.  Although the menu is WP:OR, it is not misleading or deceptive.  In fact, the secondary sources about the place saying its the best place to eat in town could be more misleading!   The reason I agreed with  is that the use of the word "solution" is often just fluff and marketing jargon, typical of the dot.com boom buzz lingo filled with hype and lacking in substance.


 * I am with you, that the white-washing is particularly troubling. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP
You're mistaken about BLP. BLP doesn't allow us to discuss anything and everything provided we only refer to RS. In fact, at the very top it says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

The RD is a bit of an odd-duck since we discuss stuff which often wouldn't go in articles, but we have to take care not to go too far especially on BLP. Notably when the info involves contentious info on non-notable living persons it's very often the case that the discussion is simply unsuitable for wikipedia. You're free to take this to WP:BLP/N if you disagree. BTW I agree that we have to be fair to victims and their family but that in this particular case the victim is too young to have any idea what rape is. So we can be sure that the victim isn't saying they were raped (something we could report if it were an article). Therefore ultimately we can only go by what other high quality RS say and all of them say the charge is going to be short of (or not if you prefer) rape. Low quality RS have no place in discussions involving BLPs but generally speaking the opinion of RS high or low quality of how to characterise the incident is irrelevant anyway. Frankly Snopes isn't the best RS, but in this particular case on the key issues they relied on what they were told by the official involved in the case. Acknowledging this doesn't victimise the mother or child. No one ever said in the discussion on wikipedia that the incident wasn't serious so I don't get why you bring that up. You can have a serious sexual assault without it being rape. In fact in some jurisdictions, it's unfortunately not even possible for a male to be raped. To give a related example, we should not say someone is a murderer if all they were ever convicted with is manslaughter. In this particular case, the jurisdiction involved uses English so we don't get into the complexities when the words used in a different language and may not perfectly correlate with English words. You are of course personally free to say whatever you want to outside wikipedia, simply bearing in mind whatever criminal and civil penalties you face, but not on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't expecting that response. I don't understand how you can quote this hard line about BLP, even as you yourself start a talk page section the links to material you think is inappropriate, then make a blanket statement that "all RS agree" that what happened was "short of rape", then tell me it's wrong to cite actual journalistic sources (of whatever quality) that are out there, published, and not being sued for libel.  This is even more bizarre in this case where there was no actual "B" in any of this BLP, since the names of the child assaulted and the children accused are withheld, and even the mother is quoted under a pseudonym.  This was, strictly speaking, an article about an event, though I should concede that I'd hold the same interpretation of Wikipedia policy if the parties were known.  I think Wikipedians should always be free, on article talk pages and noticeboards and also on the Reference Desk, to cite sources about an event and discuss what they say, to ask if a better source exists or if the source is of sufficient quality, even when we look down on the publishers of those particular sources.  That said, I haven't seen any great reason to deprecate Snopes in the first place, and one disagreement on one shrouded case like this one wouldn't change that. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was only commenting against the idea of some kind of special action against the Refdesk that is basically unrelated to that case. I haven't really run into Rambling Man himself recently, so I'll likely stay out of this otherwise. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Relativity Simultaneity From Wikipedia Reference Desk
Since I can't edit Relativity Simultaneity of Wikipedia Reference Desk therefore I am using your talk page w/o your permission. You can delete this section if my reply is not worth it.

Ref back to the diagram of article, according to the observer in green frame of reference (grey light cone), time axes Ct’ and Ct” are oblique. Now draw a red light cone w.r.t Ct’ and blue light cone w.r.t Ct” such that their bases are parallel to their respective space axes i.e. x’ and x”. As mentioned earlier that everything is happening on the surface of each cone therefore would they still be able to see one another if compare all the 3 surfaces (grey, red and blue) of 3 cones w.r.t the event at any time “t” (Ct, Ct’, Ct”). To the observer in green frame of reference, aren't event on red and blue surfaces / bases below the surface / base of grey cone (green cone if drawn separately) - i mean lie in his past.162.157.217.155 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)eek


 * I drew a case of food poisoning recently and at least at the moment I just plain can't follow this. At least specify which diagram for sure (link to the image)... I'll look at it when I can. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are the expert but still you can confirm the following with pundit of relativity at your own convenience before editing the diagrams of the article (second diagram from top).

Each perceives that the time-axis of his cone is vertical & base (surface of the cone) parallel to its space axis i.e. grey cone and other have tilted time-axes and base parallel to their respective space axis. All 3 cones don’t coincides with one another and hence their surfaces. Since event happens on the surface of each cone therefore surface of each oblique cone that extend in different direction is well below the surface of vertical grey cone if shown on a diagram.

According to the observer in green frame of reference (grey light cone), time axes Ct’ and Ct” are oblique. Now draw a red light cone w.r.t Ct’ and blue light cone w.r.t Ct” such that their bases are parallel to their respective space axes i.e. x’ and x”.

Thus would all 3 observers still be able to see one another when to the stationary, other observers are positioned in his past?

I can rewrite the previously mentioned scenario of Einstein and Galileo for your help if all above are correct as mind was scattered that time and still due to some inexplicable reasons. - Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.217.155 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at the third diagram in that article. When you shift between the three different light cones, the stuff on the inside moves around, but the edges of the cone always stay on the diagonals of the squares of the map grid. So all three cones remain in the same place. A light cone is determined by where you could go, not by how you happen to be moving at the moment. Wnt (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But still the space axes made by those parallelograms are not parallel to the surface of grey cone the way you explained – My last reply - thanks for your all replies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:739C:6D00:CC8A:2223:FEBD:438 (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested in helping on this
Please see Studs Terkel Radio Archive Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't know anything about Studs Terkel or what content he covered in these shows. Can you explain what you think I'd be particularly interested in or be able to help with? Wnt (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:RD/G/M
Wnt, hi. This was over the line as far as "treatment advice" is concerned, IMO - I've deleted the question and answers, and replaced it with the standard template message. Feel free to discuss this on the talk page if you think it should be restored. Tevildo (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Proper nutrition is recommended for everyone; therefore, it is not treatment advice. Wnt (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I only opined against a suggestion to expand this to something open-ended about the Refdesk, which didn't happen ... I haven't followed the case itself enough to have an opinion on the decision. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They have to send these things out to everyone who commented, otherwise someone invariably complains that they weren't notified—don't take it personally. If you remove your name from Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List, you'll stop getting them. &#8209; Iridescent 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't expect anyone to read my answer. :) I just wanted to note something down so that if I looked back at this in a year or two I could figure out where it came from. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You leapt to conclusions.
I was asking to justify his suggestion, not conspiring with him over it. FYI. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll note that, but I still want to avoid having admin crap infecting the Refdesk proper. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Image of mature Caudina arenicola seacucumber specimens
Hi Wnt. Don't know if your watching Talk:Caudinidae but have added a comment. --Aspro (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular science mags
"@SemanticMantis: If they sought you out in order to write an article about you on your own, that's news. If they sought you out to talk about you becoming a client, that's advertising. Did you get to the point where you found out which they were doing? Wnt (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)"


 * They sent me an email - I almost deleted as spam, thinking it was indeed a predatory publisher or perhaps merely a desperate/low esteem outfit. But then I looked at the webpage and a few articles and I liked their mission statement, thought it looked like a good kind of thing for undergrads to read if they are interested in science and maybe pursuing it - you get some cool findings digested for easy consumption, and also a little bit about the scientists themselves. Also some academics do seem to read it, and they claim their circulation rates and article downloads are quite good.


 * So I thought I'd look into it further and keep talking to them. The point is they did seek me out to write an article on me, I think because they found an announcement of a fairly big NSF grant that I was on. In that sense, it seems legit. But after a nice phone chat, they mention they neglected to discuss publication charges. Now, as you know, many/most journals make the researchers pay publication charges, even when the content is paywalled (the publishers get the research work for free, they get the peer review for free, they charge the writers to publish, then charge their peers to read- as you know it's a shitty racket all around, and the big execs at Springer and Elsevier live in palaces if they want).


 * Anyway, what Scientia are asking for pub charges is comparable to what PLoS ONE would ask, and far *less* than what Elsevier or Springer asks you to pay them to make your article open access, but maybe a bit more than they would charge as "page charges" for a closed access article. Make sense? It's all very confusing. I was leaning towards going for it - sure, it's a little bit of a vanity press feel, but if it directs citations to my work or gets some poor kid in Oregon or Kashmir interested in it, I'm fine with that. But then my boss found Beall's comments and said she can't condone spending NSF money on it - it's a total waste of funds in her book. I think that's a bit extreme, so that's why I asked what WP people thought about it. Unfortunately most of them seemed to not understand what I was asking, but that's probably my fault :) Anyway, if you want to discuss further, feel free to email me, I don't like to put too much of my science career here on WP. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this belongs with the question, and would encourage you to copy/transfer it there. It is true that there is some degree of similarity.  The underlying issue here is that the "open access" model is broken, not as badly as the copyright model, but nonetheless, it is.    The money that goes to "open publishers" ultimately comes from funding agencies - hence, funding agencies should fund the open publishers directly, rather than creating a model that charges readers or authors and creates undesirable pressures.  So I think it's a bad model, but what's bad about it is distilled from a broad segment of scientific publishing - the less-flawed segment, as it so happens...  Now as for your own choice, that I can't tell you.  But to me, just looking at the site, it seemed a few bricks shy of a load.  It didn't come off like I was reading a cool magazine, just a bunch of separate entries.  They aren't sourced like a scientific paper and not really enrapturing as popular prose.  There was an awkwardness about whether it was written by or about the researcher. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm coming around to the opinion that it's not a "cool magazine", but maybe it could be some day. Another point in their favor, I think, is that they are relatively new, and may get better. I agree the open access model is full of pitfalls, and that the funding agencies should directly fund publication... but for now open access is less bad, and that's the best I can hope for. Not that it matters, but now I'm curious: are you still in academia? Are you still researching/writing/reviewing in the traditional or open access models? I get the feeling you have some rather advanced training, but that you may have left traditional academia... email offer still stands. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Humulone NMR
You might say that information about this method is...not sufficiently covered:) I was pretty surprised the first time I heard of it, and even when I did it myself I was still surprised that it actually worked. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Gyromagnetic ratio page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=756398338 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F756398338%7CGyromagnetic ratio%5D%5D Ask for help])

Hiya!
I hope it doesn't surprise you that I fully agree with that last comment you left in that discussion. I combine having deep respect (and love!) for certain individuals with a dislike of an organization they believe(d) in. Maybe I am weird. Probably. If I didn't care so much about the individuals then I would have less of a reason to dislike the organization. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:José Gregorio Vielma Mora


Hello, Wnt. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "José Gregorio Vielma Mora".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the guy is a provincial governor in Venezuela who seemed to have some interesting political relevance. The draft was my try at translation of José Gregorio Vielma Mora.  But it had some BLP sourcing issues and while I can pick away at a Spanish translation exercise it's much harder to scan the Spanish news media looking to fill in details.  He still is in the English-language headlines now and then and I'd encourage anyone to start the article. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice for advice on User talk:Jimbo Wales
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Go to one of the enforcers and plunge a knife into its guts". Closeapple (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh lord, there's no poetry in the world any more. There, clarified to avoid unfortunate misinterpretations. Wnt (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You may appreciate this
I came across this tweet earlier. Your comment on the article talk page of Renewable Heat Incentive scandal has been shared on Facebook and Twitter because of your apparent disbelief at the scandal. Lol, it was actually sent to me and I recognised it as your comment. Thought you might appreciate this. st 170  e  23:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, as usual Twitter doesn't come close to a whole conversation... pretty useless really. Those folks should have stuck to the article talk page!  Though actually, I still don't understand how the scheme was that good yet so few people applied. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * People were just reluctant to take up renewable energy; and some were unaware. It turns out that some DUP members have family members who benefitted from the scheme, and their decision to postpone the scheme allowed more people to apply. It's just gross incompetence. It's still huge news. There's been discussion that wood pellet manufacturers actually leaked news of its closure (from DUP officials), so people would buy wood pellets. Amazing watching it unfold. st  170  e  01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI
I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sean Sphincter listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sean Sphincter. Since you had some involvement with the Sean Sphincter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DS alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are very good at what you do. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Jimbotalk
You started by posting a link doxxing a Wikipedia editor and then went off on one about how everybody who disagrees with you is "misguided". Did you think that was going to be helpful, in any way? You should know better than that. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Wikipedia has degenerated to the point where one of its main forums is talking about an article in the Daily Mail, visible to millions of people, yet even though all the participants are in fact able to find and read the article, they uphold some kind of pseudo-Victorian horror of putting the actual link there as if HTML formatting is somehow evil.  Hmmm... you know, now you've gotten me in the mood for an experiment!  See you back at the forum. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxalate degrading enzyme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brown rot. 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) 09:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_3
One word: tabloidophobia. Looking at the history of the policy, that was the reason. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ref desk
Hi Wnt. I see you've been contributing at the ref desk. Can you please think carefully about edits like this one? I've warned the OP as well but this is the sort of thing that puts women off from contributing here. Thanks. --John (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't continue to comment at that closed thread. --John (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Following my secondary support of the hat put on responses to "Could a natural breast look like fake?", you have chosen to draw me into this post in which you make wide ranging accusations. Wikipedia has no censorship restriction on objective information about the female Breast including their anatomy and cosmetic procedures for augmentation and reduction. Your notion that Galileo meant by E pur si muove that women's breasts jiggle is so untenable that I am inclined to assign your claims more to stupidity than malice. Nevertheless, others find your breast-obsessed posts offensive. Internet sites where you may seek salacious entertainment abound but in Wikipedia I continue to support the hatting of your posts, and when you ignore requests to stop, their deletion (thank you @John). Blooteuth (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Starting to answer a question is no "obsession". I merely have no obsession to deny the obvious.  The Galileo quote, well, can you teach a sense of humor?  There is no inherent contradiction between science and idle curiosity, humor and factual information, or the admiration of breasts and the respect for women.  (not that it's only women who have lovely jiggling breasts:  1:15)  I should add that I found a bit more about the wheel I was trying to reinvent with my initial suggestion - the "seismographic" approach I suggested has in fact been studied, not to find breast implants but to find breast cancer successfully: .  A relevant term there is shear-wave elastography.  Honestly I don't know if S-waves or P-waves are the more prominent to the naked eye; they seem hard to film and I don't think that the Airplane! style motion is actually either of these.  Note that there is a fairly short path, intellectually speaking, from idle admiration of a jiggle to potentially saving lives while sparing women uncomfortable mammography.  There is thus an equally short path between prudish censorship of silly things and killing people. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am impressed by your two references that could start a serious article about shear-wave elastography, which is an article that I would encourage if it emerges verifiably as an instrumental diagnosis tool in medicine. To write about the subject you will need to dissociate your text from the common voyeuristic language that is causing disruption at the ref desk, apparently with intention to do so. WP:DENY remains the reasoned response to attempts to prolong your arguments under "Could a natural breast look like fake?". Your first video reference showing male singer Trey Songz seems irrelevant. You probably wanted this. Blooteuth (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Look again, around 1:15. Meanwhile: your link actually does demonstrate the difference between two types of waves I was talking about -- first there are P/S waves that go upward quite rapidly, then a slower overall motion.  (I can't see it close to the initial contact, so this one isn't directly usable for imaging any heterogeneities in the central breast)  This is the sort of video I'd like to see a physicist comment on.  Speaking of which -- if you're OK with looking that up and posting it here, then why on Earth are you objecting to doing it at the Science Refdesk which is the place we've set aside specifically to talk about this kind of stuff? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my post at WT:RD. Blooteuth (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism
Hi Wnt, thanks for your interest in fighting censorship and your work on the article. Your response is actually well-placed given that we've already lost a number of references due to the publishing websites having been closed down by the Turkish governnent/due to "economic reasons". Just a response to this: coming from across the pond and not really being familiar with the American right-wing websphere save for the glorious Breitbart, I just looked over the WND links thinking they were just another ordinary news source... and had an allergic reaction at the sight of a Daily Mail article being used in so sensitive an article :) I think the WND sources need to be removed anyway, that's not exactly WP:RS. --GGT (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Continue of the conversation
Hello, Wnt. I would like to answer you to your comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page about article Murder of Dwayne Jones. It is not just the case I talked about. The article doesn't violate WP:AVOIDVICTIM because Dwayne Jones is already dead. But I talked about cases when victims did not die - and rule WP:AVOIDVICTIM describes particular such cases. Кадош (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article used in capital case
Template:Article used in capital case has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to RfC at NOT
You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collective entity
Template:Collective entity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC note
Hi Wnt, please see my response to your !vote at Village_pump_(policy). Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 15:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Celeb Jihad


The article Celeb Jihad has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "non-notable website"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RF23 (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The "non-notable website" seems a little fishy to me, and not just because I made sure the GNG was met. People almost never go after Wikipedia articles trying to delete them because of what they don't say ... they go after them because of what they say.  You have a bazillion contributions in WWE and Guns N Roses articles, so I looked up on the site, and sure enough, they released photos of "WWE diva Paige" and "WWE diva JoJo" on November 4, and "WWE diva Maria" on November 6.  So I have a suspicion you might find this site a little too notable.  In any case, you've prodded me into starting some more work on the article; there are sources I never got around to, and I don't think psychic powers are needed to smell some more news articles are on the way. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no conflicts of interest in it; in the article's current state it made no overt claims to notability. Upon further research it seems the site is more notable than it appears to be but the article needs to be expanded to demonstrate that. I'll remove the prod and help improve the article as best as I can. RF23 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Forum
Quick question/request, on Jimbo's talk, you just said, "It seems like it would be wiser to stick to the forum."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'forum' in that context?

(Maybe best to clarify over there)

86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please be advised
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=814153010&oldid=814152633

Thank you. 185.13.106.229 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Orgone technicians has been nominated for discussion
Category:Orgone technicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol, I have no idea. ;) Wnt (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Weeds as soil indicators concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Weeds as soil indicators, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Weeds as soil indicators


Hello, Wnt. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Weeds as soil indicators".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...
You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and is going strong. Fifty-nine editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make portals more dynamic (self-updating), and to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished two tools so far, with more to come. They are Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Discussions are underway about how to further upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too).

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:DisplayLuaTableContents
Module:DisplayLuaTableContents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:FindAndReplace
Module:FindAndReplace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
 * Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
 * We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
 * Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
 * Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
 * Block logs should display information about the granular block
 * When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
 * If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
 * If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:


 * 1) What do you think of the proposed implementation?
 * 2) We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
 * 3) Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
 * 4) Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk), Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!
Rosa Red Chateau01.jpg are red,

Good message links are blue,

My proofreading stinks,

So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)]].

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

That rollback
Yes, it was a total rollback misfire. Sorry, if I knew I'd done that I'd have immediately self-reverted. My apologies. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Per your comment per Article 13.
I don't like the wording of Article 13 either, as it's technically IMPOSSIBLE to catch every single violation.

I wouldn't be opposed to applying project wide blocks of EU based users if Article 13 passed, given that many US sites (like the Chicago Tribune) already locked out EU uses over GDPR concerns, meaning it's already harder for me to check references to some US sourced.

Do you have an admin bit? I have read WP:POINT and more than happy to get blocked for implementing a Betacommand style purge of fair use images, to prove just what impact Article 13 could have. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have a bit and I don't see merit in a plan to get blocked. As I said in that discussion, this is going to a WMF dictatorship -- either they will make a top-down decision to run a banner, or they will make a top-down decision to cut off all ties with Europe, or they will make a top-down decision to implement European closed-source censorship machines in an effort to comply with their laws, or something else.  In order of increasing probability. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amphetamine synthesis (June 28)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amphetamine synthesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amphetamine synthesis, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Amphetamine_synthesis Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Amphetamine_synthesis reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

&#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a draft in progress I was going over, and never submitted to anything. The reviewer comments are kind of confusing, since he says at once that it is a work in progress, is "better handled" at existing articles, and should be moved to mainspace.  I should mess with this again but there is sooo much organization needed to convert the collection of data from those papers into a comprehensible hierarchical review of retrosynthesis routes.  There are hundreds of different ways by which the compound is arrived at, but by going backward one step at a time it should be possible to categorize all that mass of information into something more comprehensible.  Caveat is ... it will really take some time to work through all that stuff.  I'm not sure how I should progress here, but I'll take another look at it, it has been quite a while since I started it. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Expression
Module:Expression has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I should comment that early on we tended to put any draft with a hope of one day being a useful module in Module: space and left it there to work on it; now I'm moving all these when challenged to pages like Module:Sandbox/Wnt/Expression. It's probably a net benefit since this way at least I am reminded I had something underway. Wnt (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I wouldn't know that because if I arrived in April 2016, years after Scribunto was installed and that convention kind of faded. In any case, I'm holding all of module namespace with the exception of subpages of Module:Sandbox as Template namespace or anywhere else except user namespace, which often seems to entail nominating a large number of modules (which I get by reading Special:AllPages/Module:) for deletion. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheena Monnin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cohen ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sheena_Monnin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sheena_Monnin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons comment
Hi Wnt,

I was going to post something on commons and thought it might be better to post something to you here because things have begun to calm down in what had been very stormy conversations. You just voted on the blocking issue and I am a little confused about how you were canvassed. The posting was about the difficult relations between the projects over this issue and wasn't asking anyone to come and vote. Further, you weren't pinged into the discussion. Noone was. Regarding your vote, it's immaterial because you voted undecided. I just hate for someone to be put into a bad light, when I absolutely do not think that their intention was to canvas for vote. Sorry if I've gotten oversensitive about the word "canvassed" perhaps you aren't meaning it the way that I am taking it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought it might have been the same user that posted this lovely message about relations between the projects, and it was.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I probably spoke inappropriately -- I was thinking that canvassing refers to any effort to recruit people to come to a page, and that violations of WP:CANVAS represent improper canvassing. However, that page gives a different definition where it says that canvassing only applies to non-neutral postings.  I still think my interpretation is rooted in, well, English.  So when I said I was "canvassed", I was leaving open whether it was properly or improperly, because it's quite a philosophical question to decide whether the commentary included in the original posting is relevant to which way a person would vote at the end.  I like User:Tryptofish's work, I don't have a problem with his posting, I do suspect both sides in the final vote have good reason, and I never intended to make an issue out of it; however, the influx of Jimbotalk readers is going to distort the result and that has to be noted for the best closure to be made. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I may have been the only one to catch it... and they are closing the issue saying that it was improper to go for a vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both of you. I'm feeling a bit concerned about eliciting such an influx from my Jimbotalk post, but so far, it looks to me like that hasn't really happened yet. I'll make a clarifying statement about it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine, . You were alerting to an issue regarding relations across projects. I didn't see it as canvassing at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we are OK, thanks. Just to be absolutely transparent about it, I also put a disclosure link at the Commons discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rectum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senna ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rectum check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rectum?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

pH feedback
1. You’ve got the longest Talk page I’ve seen, by far.

2. You answered this Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 August 1 (on pH in blood) and helped: even though I had the mental picture of CO₂ being released in the lungs as a gas, and even though I knew the CO₂ in blood was encased in the haemoglobin I still had the idea that the CO₂ would attach to water in the blood to make it acidic. Ta.

3. I was going to post that “realisation” to the Desk page, but I figure it’s too old now. MBG02 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
Seeing your excellent response to me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Are_there_any_pathogens_where_the_fraternal_birth_order_effect_makes_a_difference? -- I was wondering if I could please ask you another science-related question. Futurist110 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * oh, obviously. Whether you'll get a good answer is less predictable. ;) Wnt (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Anyway, could you please respond to my fertility question here? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2018_August_24 Futurist110 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We'd have to do a more thorough search (PubMed might have it, but you might have to really go through review papers and start understanding what research was done to understand the epididymis in the first place) to find out if the experiment had ever been done, because this is not something that can be predicted from first principles. For example, I don't know what would happen if a duct opened between the vas deferens and rete testis - would more and more of the rete tubules attach, then would the regenerating tissue in the region start to take on an epididymis-like identity?  No idea.  I can say that testicular sperm aspiration (TESA: needle to the testis) is used in in vitro fertilization procedures., so it's at least possible to bypass this step.  With biology "what would happen?" never gets a reliable answer. Wnt (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't IVF necessary in TESA because it's impossible to get pregnant naturally with such immotile sperm? If so, wouldn't this suggest that an extension of the vas deferens into the rete testis would result in sperm once again coming out of one's ejaculate, but with this term being immotile and thus incapable of causing pregnancy? Futurist110 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What do they have in common?
Re: "I laugh to think of the secondary source that would list these three [Ted Kaczinski, Aldous Huxley, and Francis of Asissi] together", What do Kermit the Frog and Jack the Ripper have in common? -Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * They have the same middle name. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Email
I want to send you an email Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Suicide of Katelyn Davis deleted
Hi Wnt,

Do you remember "this discussion" you participated in about the Suicide of Katelyn Davis article? You said "The case is clearly notable. The free speech angle alone makes it worth covering." Unfortunately (at least to those of us who agree it's a notable event) some people went beyond the "let's delete the picture because it's disturbing" suggestion and even the "let's make the entire article just a stub" idea, and deleted the article altogether. :( Others have recreated a "new and improved version of the article", however the draft got rejected saying the event is not notable enough. Do you have any advice for improving the article or making more apparent the subject's notability? It would be really nice to have this one back in article space. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a formidable lobby to try to go up against, so don't do it repetitively and pointlessly: nobody cared about this girl - including herself - so don't stick to trying to restore an article about her per se. Look at a broader issue of suicide video on the internet or the like, and corporate-government responses to it.  My impression is that censorship has gotten considerably worse, but a good article would make it possible to track that between cases and get some expert commentary.  Some other questions to ask pertain to my "royal road" comment before: do videoed suicides lead to more prosecutions of alleged bullies and malefactors, and has that tendency increased or decreased due to censorship?  But I don't know if you can get anything like that.  Still, if you can find secondary sources it gives a chance to dive into things.  Remember: a censor's strength is to destroy and mislead; but the other side's strength is to think, analyze, and be creative. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the latest version of Draft:Suicide_of_Katelyn_Nicole_Davis isn't about the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather about the event, which is clearly notable. See most of the other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X". WP:SINGLEEVENT says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." Compare Katelyn Davis' page to the filmed suicide page "Suicide of Kevin Whitrick" which was deemed notable enough that it even survived a "deletion proposal". Not that it's a contest of course, but Katelyn Davis' case should be considered more notable, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: You may be interested to see that the new Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis article, after a few iterations, did pass the Articles for Creation review process and entered article space! However, the new article was promptly [proposed for deletion]. As you mention above, some have suggested merging the article's content into other topics such as Facebook's response to suicides. Anyway, as one who has made thoughtful comments on this subject before, you may be inspired to do so again during this seven day deletion discussion. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to delete this
I just saw two rounds of somebody saying the following:

Please stood vandalizing my edits
Please stop vandalizing my edits. Policy says Jimbo can be asked but people revert before he can respond. So please stop vandalizing my edits and give Jimbo a chance to respond. 64.134.98.148 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, I don't know why I was messaged with this since I didn't do that, but I don't need people removing his comments on my talk page and "vindicating" his position that way. You may need "rollback" to handle vandalism in mainspace, but using it on mild talk page rebukes is unwarranted. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)