User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive3

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened
You were recently 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/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP. You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.
 * If you did not receive an email from either Sadads or me, could you please post to WT:OUP/Approved? I'd like to be able to pass on the remaining approved accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Margaret Abraham
Good finds. Being a president of ASA's automatically makes her pass WP:BIO, and those sources are enough for a stub at least. PS. In the future, I'd suggested posting such a question to WT:SOCIO and echoing me there. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * That's what Americans would call cold comfort, indeed, thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  focus

Thank you for your contributions to quality articles such as George Solti, for creating them, such as Louis Purnell, and for requesting focus saying: It is only slightly more wordy to say, "that comment makes no sense because ..." than to say, "you're an idiot", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 232nd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy
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/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tara Zahra
Hello, Alanscottwalker. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Tara Zahra, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. st170etalk 01:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
Oops! You had me triple-guessing myself there. :) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Shame and embarrassment emoticon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the only mistake either of us makes today then I'll count this one as a very good day. Those pages all start to look alike sometimes anyway. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tami Bond
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Heiwa Terrace
Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At Territories of the United States
Thanks for your support at Talk:United States. The discussion proceeds as last year, with TFD misreading my sources and providing no sources of his own. Unlike last year, he has not begun reverting on the article mainspace.

But TFD has now at Territories of the United States attempted to remove the section I wrote on 21st century territories, claiming they were “random collection of facts used to argue territories are part of U.S.” I have opened a discussion section at Talk:Territories of the United States/Archive 1. Please give a look to see if I have overstepped. I mean only to properly lay out one side of the argument, appropriately sourced, and allow for inclusion of both sides, appropriately sourced.

I understand that there are those who believe the U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S., --- though they are represented by Members of Congress (Delegate, Commissioner) chosen by U.S. federal elections and are "native-born" Americans according to the U.S. Census classification. In the 21st century, islanders have mutually agreed with the Congress to be a part of the U.S. by referendum. But regardless of whether you find that persuasive, I believe I should get a fair hearing, and both sides should be properly sourced. Thanks in advance for any contribution you would want to make. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

U.S. square area
Perhaps a footnote such as recommended by you could be in order to accommodate the territorial excluders, -- to the effect that a) the states and DC alone are reported as having an area of 3,796,742 sq.mi., but leave the 3.80 million sq.mi. in the article mainspace intro and 3,805,927 sq.mi. in the info box. Would you see if that footnote proposal could calm the waters towards a consensus here for geographic area? -- OR would you prefer b) the 3,796,742 sq.mi. in the info box and a footnote for total area of 3,805,927 sq.mi. to include the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, could we have both in the infobox:

X mi/km (inhabited total)[fn] Y mi/km (States and DC) [fn]

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Best idea yet. Thanks. It is my contention that both inclusion and exclusion views should be represented, as can be reliably sourced.
 * I'm still looking for a source which uses the 1901 judicial invention of "unincorporated" territory which would say, "The official United States of America are the judicially classified "incorporated" fifty states, the federal district and Palmyra Atoll." Somehow incorporated/unincorporated classification is so arcane a judicial term of art that I cannot find its practical application to the reporting of geographical area of the United States anywhere but in the minds of three WP editors.
 * But lets go forward with a collaborative online encyclopedia. Would you mind posting your idea for "both" to the Poll subsection I just created at Talk:United States? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”,
 * A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.
 * B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.
 * Although I have posted your idea for both twice so far, the results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC
As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Wall of text at Talk:United States
The wall of text at Talk:United States is generated by my interpreting TFD as good faith inquiry into the subject. I suppose some would consider TFDs comments a form of wp:disruption as I sometimes do, but part of me answers as a retired school teacher responding to belligerent questioning as an opportunity to reinforce the lesson with additional sources, part of me responds to my child at four years repeatedly asking Why? to each response without any discussion contribution of her own. I think my extended commenting to answer straw man arguments is technically called “feeding the trolls”. But my posts are 1/3 to 1/4 shorter than last year’s...in part because my sourcing is better and the use of single brackets. Thank you for the West Publishing example, I had found it during research, but I did not understand the status of the publisher posting the information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the unhelpful behavior of 'trouting'. Being snarky isn't funny, and doesn't help the recipient hold a proper conversation about how to improve the encyclopedia. For the record, my action was not silly in any way, and everything you said about it was completely and utterly demonstrative of an interest in something, I know not what, but something other than the improvement of Wikipedia. I didn't and don't appreciate it. Please be more mature in the future.-- Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What? There was nothing snarky about it.  If you cannot accept that other people will sometimes see your actions as silly and unhelpful and will tell you so and why, than it is you who are acting immature.  There is no 'interest in something' - I said exactly what I mean and why I was saying it -- and your either dark innuendo, here, or assumption of bad faith is not an improvement to Wikipedia. Either directly address my concern or don't but your innuendo is most uncivil.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I apologize, my objections to TFD postings seem so mild compared to WP fare one can often find, but I will happily retract them. I meant a) to recognize that my responses to unsourced TFD objections filled up the page "as a wall of text" which I would prefer to avoid in the future, and b) to thank Alanscottwalker for nailing down the reliable source by West Publishers for a legal definition of "U.S. Territories" which was mirrored on another website where I could not determine the author's source. I recognize from my discussion with older≠wiser and Alanscottwalker that I need to make a more concise argument next time, otherwise the situation seems "too complex" and "murky". TFD remains unhelpfully unsourced.


 * Somehow I find my post being characterized as "trouting", --- I thought "trouting" had to be delivered directly to the user? That is not my intent, my intent is to follow wp:psts and wp:or as to secondary sources on the subject of the 21st century status of the five major territories, --- as opposed to maintaining that their status is unchanged since 1901 or in 1922 --- WITHOUT sources. See Lawson and Sloane (2009) "endlessly" referenced, cited, linked and directly quoted as to the 21st century "incorporation" of Puerto Rico, regardless of its 1901 or 1922 status. It remains without a scholarly counter-source supplied in opposition. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NO. Another editor came here and posted in the section you created.  So, trouting (and that whole comment) has nothing to do with you. :) Alanscottwalker (talk)
 * Thanks. somehow it is reassuring not to say comforting, that TFD is not Jimmy Wales. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources
Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Close review, second closing
You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard. Alsee (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation/United States
I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Captive Slave
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A week gone by
With a week gone by and no response to Sunray's request for further comments, just so you know, Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_65#Two_US_lead_options_with_most_endorsements].


 * Can you live with… The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older=wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.


 * Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. … — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, second choice older=wiser (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.

Consensus discussion led by Mendaliv on United States Talk page included this exchange,


 * The United States ... is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.


 * "I might could live with this one." --Golbez (talk) 1:15 am, 24 February 2013, Sunday (1 year, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5) [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_45#Open_Paragraph_Proposal]

With TFD adamantly opposing, the 2-1 majority in the dispute resolution relented (two for including territories dropped out of the process), the process failed on the discussion page thereafter, following multiple mainspace reversions to exclude the territories. —

You will notice how very close this last draft language is to our mediated Proposal Y, which Golbez once "endorsed", while TFD's good faith concession in mediation is a restatement of his 2013 position without supporting scholarly sources for his non-sequiturs, then silence. And now we again have, silence for a week. I am for a collaborative sourced on-line encyclopedia. But is there something in this collaborative process I am missing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. It often takes a long time.  But any single/few holdout will have to just be overridden in the end. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illinois Confederation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquian. 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) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar!

 * Most unexpected but you're welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for all of your time and input over at AfD. Your comments helped us see into blind spots. Jbh (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
Hi Alanscottwalker. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at a Requested Edit on a BLP page here. There is some relevant discussion above it. BTW - I noticed link 3 on your user page is a broken link. CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to thread the needle
At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —and using the letter identification of subject phrases. A:, B:, C:, ... is just for discussion purposes.


 * D.1 The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.


 * D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, as well as B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.


 * D.3. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district, C: two commonwealths, D: three territories and E: other possessions in its national jurisdiction.

These can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.
 * D.1. The federal republic consists of A, B and C. or,
 * A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic -- or -- C is in a non-A-B status.

or
 * D.2. The federal republic consists of A, as well as B and C. or,
 * A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, B and C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic, -- or -- B and C are in a non-A status.

or
 * D.3. The federal republic consists of A, B, C, D and E. or,
 * A, B, C, D, E in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, E in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic, -- or -- E is in a non-A-B-C-D-E status.

Any thoughts in response to these items for redrafts, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed
The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

great help
I appreciated the links on your user page.

I noticed that some of them mentioned pain and hope that you are alright.

GregKaye 19:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine thank you. I hope the links are helpful, but actually, I did not know what you were referring to - I got those links years ago from I do not remember where.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Photo requests in the Chicago city and suburbs
Hi! Do you do photo requests in the Chicago city and suburbs? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Sorry. If you want to request a photo on that subject go to - Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for the suggestion :) - I also made sure several of the articles had the proper photo needed tag WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase
Hello Alanscottwalker, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed
The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mediation on Grant
I'm going to go ahead and request mediation there, since we can't seem to get a straight answer out of one editor. Do you think that's right? I haven't done one of these before. My main experience with dispute resolution was GW's last episode, and RfCs are now discontinued, apparently. I'd be glad for any advice. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, mediation is pretty easy to start (accept) but, I am doubtful of how useful it will be as the current editor count is 3-1, and the one won't recognize compromise, and he does not recognize the three of us have any points but perhaps . . . The alternative is just hold ground on the page -with a note saying he has not succeeded at WP:ONUS so there is nothing left to do here (i will second that), the burden is his. (whatever you do, avoid ANI, unless you want to gather and argue a long string of abuse [diffs], against skeptical audience there) Do you know anyone who can talk to him? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't. I've never met anyone who could reason with him. I don't know that the mediation will work, but what other options do we have? The situation is out of hand.--Coemgenus (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except he has already said, he won't respect a mediator - so maybe just time to say 'no' and keep saying it - he has the burden. At any rate, I can't say you're wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right. It's kind of a waste of a mediator's time. I'm not too familiar with ANI, but I commented on the last one about GW. It actually seemed like it might've worked, if it had been phrased differently, perhaps as a sanction against his disruptive behavior, rather than racism per se (although the situation in 2013 is rather similar to this one). Do you think it might be worth another try? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm not going to go to ANI unless you're on board. I'll look into inviting other editors to weigh in, that might help. We'll see who else wants to take a dip in that cesspool of a talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. What a weird thing for people to spend their time on. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted
Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Question
Of course you have the option of deleting your talk page text without responding but, again, I am trying to reduce wp:drama on the talk page. You make a connection between the caption of the infobox photo and the title of the segment of content below. Was this something that you had clearly in mind when you made the edit or was your edit more as a reaction to the "Rodham" being removed from the main infobox heading? I think that we need to work together so as to develop coherent content without the involvement of other goals. GregKaye 05:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to reduce drama then just follow wiki practice assume good faith, as I said in the edit summary it was to reflect the source. This provides sourced information in an efficient manner to the reader, and yes I knew the text that was already below the image. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 June
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) 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Chicago metropolitan area page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=667189625 your edit] caused a broken reference name (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%2F667189625%7CChicago metropolitan area%5D%5D Ask for help])

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
 * 2) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
 * 3) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Thanks very much...
...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for São José Paquete Africa
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ICYMI (and thanks)
Tvoz / talk 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case evidence
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FArbitration_enforcement%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=669930739&oldid=669882822 this evidence] you presented: note that the action in question was due to a violation of a specific topic ban for the editor, and not under the authorization of discretionary general sanctions in the topic area. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And the difference that makes is? Where are the standards for enforcement for "violation of a specific topic ban"?Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC) User:Issac1 Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply letting you know, so if you like, you can adjust your presentation as you wish. As you know, authorization for discretionary sanctions leaves the decision on when to enact sanctions and what sanctions to enact up to the judgment of the administrator, whereas a topic ban has specific criteria with, in the case of an arbitration case remedy, a standard enforcement procedure. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I don't know. What are you referring to when you say "standard enforcement procedure"? I understand the remedy/ban is placed by Arbcom, but the enforcement is left to all uninvolved admins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)  User:Issac1  Do you have a link to a page I can look at, to see what you mean? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF. The standard provisions were passed last year so they could be reused with each case without having to vote on them each time, and to bring uniformity to the enforcement mechanisms, making it easier for users to understand, rather than having to know the peculiarities of each specific case. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, your pings aren't for the right user, but in any case I have your talk page watchlisted at the moment. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To further clarify: with an authorization for discretionary sanctions, administrators have to determine if an editor's actions are disruptive and what sanction would be best suited to remedy the situation. With a specific editing restriction, the arbitration committee has already determined what criteria should be used to trigger a sanction, and the sanction is escalating blocks. (How much judgment administrators should use in implementing this is the basic question under discussion in this case.) isaacl (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Poor whoever that is, sorry (I don't under stand that either, are you not User:Issac1?)  At any rate, I get the the topic ban cannot be lifted (nor should it be disputed) by anyone but Arbcom, but the Admin still has to decide to push the buttons, when it happens. So, it is (more than) half done, you are correct, it's just not all done.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by half done. Enforcement is executed by administrators in all cases, but an authorization for discretionary sanctions doesn't tell administrators what to do or when to do it; it leaves it up to them to look at a dispute in the targeted area and figure something out. An editing restriction specifies that Editor X cannot do Y, and blocks can be applied if X does Y. So the scope of judgment required for discretionary sanctions is much broader: administrators have to decide if there was disruption in the area, what was the nature of the disruption, and what action might best serve to improve the situation. I think the difference may affect the relevance of your current evidence (particularly when you say that "The tension here is that DS is discretionary"), and so I thought I would draw your attention to this matter. The name you've been entering is misspelled. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the disruption is established by Arbcom, but the enforcement can't occur, until an action by the party occurs, and then the admin has to decide what to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FArbitration_enforcement%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=669973428&oldid=669930739 these edits], you've added links to an editing restriction and its enforcement provision, but in both cases immediately after sentences that refer to discretionary sanctions, which is a bit contradictory. I suggest your line of reasoning would be easier to follow if you modify it to discuss editing restrictions instead. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's contradictory but there is a tension in current policy. The admin has no discretion to lift the ban but I think has some discretion (DS) on what enforcement action to take. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the authorization for discretionary sanctions is different than the editor's topic ban, so when you use the term "Discretionary Sanctions" in your evidence, most people will think you are referring to this authorization. Based on your clarification, you're just saying that administrators have discretion to decide on how to enact the standard enforcement provision. These two are not the same thing, thus the potential for confusion. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Mediation update or RfC proper?
Not sure where to work in the Mediation/United States summary charts in the RfC proper to avoid clutter, so I tried out a sample with putting them in the “Mediation update” section proposed for the “United States:Talk “page” immediately before the RfC -- see the Mediation page section on "Final draft of RfC".

Please feel free to rearrange in accordance with the earlier working consensus to add them to the RfC proper. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

DYK for Nokuse Plantation
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Chicago skyline
Greetings, I see that you've edited the Architecture of Chicago page. It looks like the clickable image of the skyline there is more current then the image of the Chicago skyline that appears on most building pages, like here. Not sure when the latter image was taken, but I don't see the Trump Tower Chicago on the recurring image. Do you know how that could be updated? Not sure how to find out who created the original. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know the answers - if you look at the wiki-editing-code for the image, it looks like something just done at that article by someone and would require going through the article history, but perhaps someone at the help desk, who knows more about images and coding can help WP:HD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Adams - retirement data
I agree with your removal of the data regarding lifespan of Adams and other presidents. I have the same impression of the data in the retirement section on the length of retirement. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chicago-style politics (meme) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chicago-style politics (meme) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I'm notifying you because you had an opinion regarding the similar Chicago-style politics page. It seems the new page is redundant at best.Springee (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gerber House intro
Per your question in this edit summary: That's generally been the way we've done intros for all buildings at WP:NRHP (Or at least me). Since WP:LEADPARAGRAPH says the first graf should "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time." To me, that means you give the "vital statistics", as it were, first, and answer the "five questions" when applicable: What is this? Where is it? Who designed or built it? (not really known in this case, so not relevant to the lead graf)? Why is it important? And how did it get to be that way?

Answering all those questions in a single graf would have made it really long (Some people here seem to like things that way ... I don't; it's not easy on the reader, especially if they're reading on a phone). So I put the basics in the first graf, up to its earlier landmark listings, and then use the second graf to give the context that leads up to the NHL designation (the why and how). See LEADPARAGRAPH again: "[U]se the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." (Since you seem to do a lot of Chicago-related stuff, I'd note that Chicago Board of Trade Building, an FA, doesn't describe the building as an NHL right off the bat either).

Basically, I think, we want two things of a lead section: First, to give a quick executive summary or abstract of the article for someone who wants the important stuff and has neither the time nor the inclination to read the whole thing (Imagine someone standing on North Crilly Court, waiting for someone, looking casually at some app that uses GPS to recommend wiki articles about things in their immediate vicinity (they do exist)) This article's the first one to come up and, given that they're waiting for someone, what will they want to know that they can read before being interrupted? That goes in the intro.

As MOS:INTRO says, "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." So it should be written with that in mind, as if it were an entirely separate written work.

Second, as that goes on to say, in its intro, "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article". So by not giving everything important in the first graf of the lead, I think, we send the reader the message that there's a good story here and you might want to take the time, if you've got it, to read it at length.

Also, I noticed in one of your earlier edits that you changed the bit about "first gay periodicals" to "first gay rights periodicals". The NHL application is quite clear about the former. That doesn't mean they're Moses-down-from-the-mountain right, of course, but if that's a mistake then we'd need to some sourcing (or a note) on the earlier ones the NHL nomination writers and researchers missed. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar
BTW, I like how the intro has turned out between the two of us. So ...


 * Well, good, than I don't have to post my longer reply, which was lost in an edit conflict anyway. As for civil rights publication that's from the Chicago Landmark page (and think about it: 1924 is probably too late to be a first for any publication, even in the US, aimed at homosexual interests, period - I hope I am not being too graphic by suggesting that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Image
I have been editing Lincoln Park Conservatory for the past few days. It is a great spot to spend an afternoon. I just wanted to thank you for your splendid image of the Conservatory and the garden. You make it look as bright and clean as when it was built. . Buster Seven   Talk  19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How kind. You are welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Hi Alanscottwalker. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. 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. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Typo?
In 2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC you wrote "According to your analysis we most throw out most the supports in RfA". Did you mean "According to your analysis we must throw out most the supports in RfA"? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Grant, again
Did you see that those guys are already trying to alter the paragraph we all agreed to in mediation. Unbelievable. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 813 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Alanscottwalker, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Biblio worm  16:32, 8 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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A gentle survey for research purpose
Hello Alanscottwalker,

I am Bowen Yu, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Your post
Check the bottom of the diff for some extraneous text. --Neil N  talk to me 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)