User talk:Awilley/Archive 4

Adherencestats
What do you think about the last bulletpoint in the WP:ADHERENCESTATS section about medum-sized religions. Do i have a point? Pass a Method  talk  13:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do have a point. The cutoff range for "medium size" religions seems a bit arbitrary, and I could see arguments for having it higher/lower/wider/narrower, but I do agree that it is undue/unbalanced to give religions with 100–1,000 members equal weight with religions with 50,000–1,000,000 members. (By the same logic, however, I see it as undue to give religions with 50,000–1,000,000 members equal weight with religions with 50,000,000–1,000,000,000 members. Each group, after all, is separated by about three orders of magnitude. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Jargon Conversation @ WER
I agree completely with the premise that we should spell out the nutshell of the acronym. That way the lesson to the new editor is given in the moment it is needed. As DB states most editors will not go read the rule or guideline. When we spell it out, they can't ignore the meaning. Also, the intent to instruct is a bit more obvious and may soften the "Who are you to tell me" reponse. ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U
I still think the RfC/U involved amounts to a personalized attack. The editor seems determined to denigrate all my contributions, and to try to portray them in the most negative light possible. For example he ignores the fact that my additions of hundreds of x university alumni cats to various articles are not at all complained about. Also, I still find his general responses to my comments excessive, and his thrid-posting of a discussion on the same page in a row on my talk page was unnedded, since there was already a AfD in process where he could have made the comments. I am really trying to be as calm as possible about this, but he seems to want to portray all my actions in a negative light. His recently unacceted attempt to call me a "vandal" is par for the course of his use of the most combative and denigrating language in describing my actions. I also think it is odd he complains about my allegedly excessive number of comments when he made 28 comments to the discussion of Category:American people of African-American descent. My 9 comments there may have been more than neccessary, but they were far fewer than his. Anyway, to some extent they were a response to his egging on by claiming I had not adequately explained myself in comments up to that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I called you a "Vandal" because you edit-warred on my talk page. This isn't about one category; if you look at all the categories discussed on that day, you'll see (even if the 28-9 comment is accurate) that JPL out-commented me for the day 32-29, and it's worth noting that most of my comments were in response to Xvon, who outcommented either of us in the thread and who also edit-warred to place that category on other pages.  And part of the problem is your high volume of edits.  I'll happily concede that you've made hundreds of perfectly-acceptable category adds or deletions.  The problem is that, in sum, you've made thousands of category adds or deletions, hundreds of which are questionable.  And a quick FYI: calling an RfC/U a personal attack or trying to turn the tables on its nominator won't work.  That's not how RfC/U works  p  b  p  19:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm not at all familiar with your history or his, and I don't really understand what the conflict is about. If I were to offer any advice to you, it would be to remain calm. If there are problems with some of your contributions, just apologize and try to fix them. If the problems are his, well, then it's not your problem. Just make sure you're on the side of policy, and you'll be just fine. My advice for personal attacks is to simply ignore them. They just reflect poorly on the person making them. (This is one of my favorite little essays on the subject, if you haven't read it already.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is really frustrating to know that someone has formultated specific attacks on your actions and not be able to respond to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Generally it is against policy to store a collection of diffs against other editors in the userspace (see WP:UP) but there is an exception for preparing material for dispute resolution purposes like an RfC/U. If the RfC/U goes live (probably unlikely at this point) then you will be able to respond directly to the allegations. If it doesn't, the draft page will be blanked and/or deleted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your helpful advice on this issue. Will I be notified on my talk page if the RfC/U goes live?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Less active
Computer crashed today. I'll probably be on the iPod for the next while. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

 * Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Buster. ~ Adjwilley ( talk ) 01:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

RFA comment
Hey, Adjwilley! So, I have definitely thought of changing my username before, and it actually came up as a prerequisite for running for one of my earlier failed RFAs. After this is all said and done, and regardless of how this RFA turns out, I will definitely consider doing it, as I know that it would be good to keep users from becoming confused as to whom they may be talking to. I decided to respond to you here, as I figured it would be easier to talk here than comment under your support. If you have any other ideas, feel free to drop me a line or e-mail, and I will be happy to respond! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for all that drama and mudslinging that was going on at the RFA. I felt really bad there at the end. As for the username thing, I remember reading somewhere that name changes for someone like yourself with tens of thousands of edits can really bog down the servers, which is why I had suggested the "aka" solution. Upon further investigation it looks like you've already got User talk:Kevin Rutherford redirecting to you, so maybe you're fine after all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments at ANI concerning me. The allegation is ....—strange, to say the least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I got a pretty good laugh when I read the "Mum's the word" exchange - enough that my wife asked what was going on. It looks like I made the same mistake of taking sarcasm too literally though in responding to DC's comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank u
Thx for hatting the irrelevant dialogue at WER. The real topics were very relevant to future of the Pedia IMO (great contributions by Malleus, Rich Farmbrough, Intothatdarkness, Epipelagic, etc.). Plus the rare opportunity to hear some of Malleus's insights re what changes are needed for a way forward 'out of the mess'. It was disappointing the discussion there wasn't valued by certain WER members, who were instead quick to lecture and complain off-topic. (I have a theory why this happened ... it's my belief some of the WER members resented 'trespass' onto their 'turf topic', editor retention, by 'outsiders' with serious new ideas. That explains e.g. why it was pointed out to others that I was not a member there. And they wanted to return as quickly as possible to the comfortable day-to-day they've enjoyed at that forum up till the 'intrusion'. And the fastest way to get there would be to derail the discussion via off-topic complaints and lectures, degrading it to a cat-fight, wouldn't it? A shame. I did not expect to run into that attitude, but, I guess it is human nature.) Before Malleus 'left the building', he did deposit some valuable ideas for others to read & consider. Thanks for helping preserve their presentation, as well as the other core thoughts there, via your hatting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I think the sock puppet was a lot funnier than I was, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned comment.
You put a date and time stamp on your latest comment in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but you forgot to sign it. Just thought you'd want to know. Thanks for all your great work on WP, and please keep it up. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like I accidentally typed 5 tildes instead of 4. If I remember correctly, you have to put the username in the unsigned template like this:, with the date stamp being optional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing religions as "small"
You have a tendency to describe religions outside of the Judeo-Christian faiths as being "small" or "undue", most recently with regards to Unitarian Universalism and Wicca, which according to this source are respectively the 6th and 7th largest faiths in the US. The stats are similar in other western countries so they are hardly small in the region of Aumism or Samaritans. Wicca influences most other pagan faiths. I would be wiling to propose an amendment on WP:RNPOV to set a precedent or something. Pass a Method  talk  02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we've covered this ground before. As to your specific concern about Wicca, I have already responded here. As to the "small", I have responded to that here. It all boils down to context. In the context of pagan religions, Wicca is large. In the context of major world religions, it's relatively small. As for precedents, I think we have several precedents already from when you were going around adding links and sections on Raelism to articles. (If I remember correctly, none of them really stuck.) That said, I agree with you that we should try to find a wider consensus on this, but I don't think RNPOV is the place to do it, since it's more a question of notability, relevance, and weight. How about if you and I sit down and work up a RFC on the matter. We could write it up in a user-space sandbox somewhere, and then present it at WP:Wikiproject Religion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You recently said the baha'i religion is small. So what is your response to this source which calls Baha'i a major religion? Pass a Method   talk  16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The two are not mutually exclusive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Maitreya claimants are Bodhisattva
Yes, recently I was helping categorize urn categorized Bodhisattas or rather uncategorized Bodhisattva claimants in the Bodhisattvas category. This has needlessly lead to an edit war. For example, if a person claims to be Akashagarbha, Avalokiteshvara, Kshitigarbha, Mahastamaprapta, Maitreya, Manjushri, Samatabahadra, Sarvanivaraavishkambin, or any other bodhisattva, that's a bodhisattva claim, even if it isn't explicitly specified as such on that particular page. One of the three edit warriors claim there was no such claim on the page, to Bodhisattvahood, but as explained earlier there is a claim to Maitreyahood on the page which is the same thing actually. I'll copy and past this to the talk pages of all three edit warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.88.11 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't really have much to add to the discussion currently on the talk page, and I had reverted as much as a matter of procedure as anything. (When an edit is challenged, it's usually best to revert to the status quo until the conflict is resolved.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Joy of Sects
"While the Strangites and Bickertonites are part of the larger Latter Day Saint movement, they are generally not considered "Mormon"."

Am well aware of this. However, I would also point out that Joseph Smith's church was referred to as "Mormon" in his day, and that both of these groups use the Book of Mormon. They eschew this term since it associates them with the Brighamites. Outsiders frequently refer to these groups as Mormon though.

However, it is still very useful to compare their take on the black priesthood issue, with that of the mainstream LDS, since they are all branches of the same tree.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Nibley article
When you moved those two recent paragraphs on the talk page you somehow made them invisible. I can't fix it. Could you please do so? 89.242.20.48 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's odd. They're visible to me, and I can't think what might have caused the problem. They're at the bottom of the talk page in the section named: Family controversy section ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, for me, the new section you created is not visible in read mode, only in edit. Even more mysteriously, this current section on your talkpage isn't visible to me in read mode either, but only in edit mode! I'm confused! 89.242.20.48 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is indeed strange. I know that the Wikimedia servers are acting up today, since they are currently in the process of being moved from Florida to Virginia. Earlier today nobody could edit for some period of time. This might be something you should ask about at the WP:Help desk. If you go there, tell them that you can't see new sections added to talk pages (old sections appear just fine). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You might also try bypassing your cache (instructions here). ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged
Thank you for clearing the vandalism from my user page (and adding to the count). I appreciate it. 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There was a point where I thought Mangoeater was funny, but he's getting kind of annoying. I'm sorry you end up being the target so often. (I'm still pretty proud of User:AdjSilly though :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Americanism
I've been trying to come up with a word for your perspective and the closest thing i could come up with was 2 words: Christcentric and Americanism. Christcentric because you appear to regard non-Judeo-Christian religions as inferior and dscribe them as "non-notable" or "non-mainstream". I came up with Americanism because your residence in the US probably explains your Christcentric perspective since the the three largest religions in the US are of Judeo-Christian origin (source). I would like to point you to WP:CHRISTIANPOV which refutes some of your notions regarding "UNDUE". Finlly i would like for you to learn the difference between a religion and religious branch/denomination. There is a big difference. Pass a Method  talk
 * I've found it's generally unhelpful to speculate about others' point of view. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there are no sides. My guideline for the notability of religions is thus:
 * Larger religions are generally more notable than smaller religions.
 * Religions with a significant international following are more notable for inclusion in articles with an international scope.
 * When choosing between "traditional" or "new" religions for inclusion in religion-related articles, preference should be given to the historic, traditional, stable religions with significant influence in society, politics, and economic affairs, over the short-lived, novel, charismatic popular faiths. (Robert Ellwood makes this distinction, dividing religions into "Temple" religions vs. "Marketplace" religions.) This means giving Zoroastrianism preference over Scientology.
 * A slight preference should be made toward religions that have a sacred text containing their theology vs. those that rely on unorganized customs.
 * No preference should be made between Eastern and Western faiths, when all other things are equal.
 * Smaller religions become more notable in topics related to the religion. (This is comparable to the WP:FRINGE guideline, though I would be reluctant to call anyone's beliefs "fringe".)
 * As for "Americanism", if that is the case, how do you explain these two recent edits of mine? Both reduce the US/UK-centric bias in articles with international scope. (Incidentally, both are reverts of your edits.)
 * Responding directly to your assumptions about my POV, I think you'll find I'm fairly pragmatic. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I try to find the best sources available on the subject and then adopt their POV as my own. If you want to change my POV, just show me a good source or Wikipedia policy. (Your user-space opinion essay linked above doesn't count.)
 * Lastly, speaking of where people live, what on earth were you doing awake at 4:00 UTC? Why don't we just lower our stress levels, drop the personal feelings, and just focus on content? It's funner that way anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point about international scope, you eill notice i tend to avoid large religions which are not international in scope, i.e. Falun Gong and Santeria, both with millions of adherents, but centred in their home country. Pass a Method   talk  17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree on something :-). I wouldn't be surprised if we had more in common than either of us suspect. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Im skeptical about the genuineness of your above statement considering your actions on the God article where you minimized coverage of Sikhism while expanding Judaism, despite Sikhism being larger than Judaism. In other words, you say one thing but do another. Pass a Method   talk  00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, that was seven months ago! I assume you are talking about this edit, since that's the only place I can find that I touched Sikhism. It was a paragraph about the names of God, and you had put in a short sentence saying, "The Ik Onkar is the symbol of god for Sikhs." I changed it to say that the name of God in Sikhism was Waheguru, making it relevant to the paragraph. And while I did move things around in the paragraph for a more logical flow, I didn't "expand" Judaism. In fact, in this edit, I dramatically decreased the amount of coverage of Judaism in the Lead paragraphs. (In the same edit I also reduce the weight given to Christianity and Islam.) Maybe I'm missing something, or have forgotten something (it was a long time ago) but as far as I can tell, my edit history at God does not support your theories about me. Also, I came up with the guidelines above long after our encounter at the God article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats merely an example. There are many other instances where you oppose coverage of non-Biblical faiths with the rationale that they are "non-mainstream", including against Zoroastrianism, Wicca and Baha'i.  Pass a Method   talk  21:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I've said before, the proper amount of coverage depends on the context. Sometimes small religions or NRMs don't need an entire section devoted to them in a broad topic article like Religion or God. Small polytheistic religions don't need significant coverage in articles with a monotheistic scope. (I notice you haven't given any diffs, which makes it hard to address your concerns directly.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In this regard, I honestly think that the best way to go is to follow the lead of the most highly regarded reference sources as a more or less basic indicator of how much weight, as per our guideline of WP:WEIGHT, regarding how much or little space/weight to give content relative to specific religious groups in our articles. FWIW, the two best out there right now are the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is the second edition of the work Mircea Eliade started in the 1980s, and Brill's Religion Past and Present, the latest edition, with a title change, of their long-running RGG work. Basically, those two sources have been highly regarded for their global perspective. I would personally favor myself using the Jones Encyclopedia, because so far as I can determine their articles are generally longer, and closer in length to our own, so in that regard it probably provides a better basis for serving as a rough indicator of what the prevailing academic "weight" is given individual faiths in main articles. I have started the list of articles in that work at User:John Carter/Religion articles, arranged according to the work's own synoptic outline/table of contents. I am currently working on expanding the list to include specifically designated or "named" subsections of the articles in that work. I think it makes sense to follow the lead of the most highly regarded sources out there in this regard. Also, to Adjwilley, you might want to check your e-mail. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John, I have responded. I looked up the Jones Encyclopedia on Amazon and Google, and it looks like it's a 15 volume set with a high price tag. That sounds like a lot of work you're doing...I can't believe how long that list is so far. I'll be interested in looking at it for ideas on how to expand and add new sections to certain articles I'm interested in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all; another newsletter.


 * If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
 * Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
 * We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
 * Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletions
I have now noticed you deleting content or entire sections from multiple articles. WP:UNSOURCED states that you shoudld "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". Such an interim step is useeful because an addition may still be under contruction. WP:PRESERVE mentions a similar policy saying "fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't". Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. Pass a Method  talk  16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would be so kind as to provide me with diffs I may be able to address your concerns. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that the more relevant policies and guidelines say that unsourced material can be removed at any time, so unless such material is of significant relevance to the article, I cannot see how Adjwilley will have necessary done anything actionable. I do have serious questions however whether Pass a Method's apparent review of Adjwilley's actions might raise issues of stalking and other forms of misconduct. Also, Adjwilley, I dropped you an e-mail. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a diff from an edit you made two hours ago. You could have added a citation tag instead of deletion. Pass a Method   talk  00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A citation was not needed. Note how that disambiguation page doesn't have any citations at all, or a reference section. What was needed was something in the main article to back it up, and it looks like you added that shortly after my edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does have a reference section actually. Pass a Method   talk  00:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, look at that. It shouldn't. See Disambig where it says, "Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed." ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not expecting references would be added to the disambiguation page, but i think it is allowed to tag the disambiguation itself then one could cite on the article. Pass a Method   talk  00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Note
That's nice of you. Still the removal of material is removal of material. If one wishes to add material to another article that's all fine, provided it is related to appropriate topic and properly referenced, but removal of referenced material from other articles in the process is not justified by any rationale.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox
I checked out your sandbox, but i disagree with your sentiment there. In response i updated the WP:CHRISTIANPOV essay with the line ''proselytizing religions tend to have more members/followers. But proselytism is an unconvicing criteria for notability, hence pure adherence statistic numbers should not be given too much weight.''

I agree with your point about due weight and "unmanageable jumbled list of religions.", but that is why i only give weight where a particular doctrine is important to a religion. I have thus added the line Additional weight should be given where a particular doctrine is important to a particular religion. Pass a Method   talk  12:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm glad you saw that. It was intended to be a draft of the RFC I suggested above. If you'd like to chip in and edit it, feel free. Otherwise you are welcome to leave specific comments on the sandbox talk page, which I have created for that purpose. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added my own list of criteria on the talk page Pass a Method   talk  09:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar
Thank you for your note of appreciation and the minor barnstar; I had no idea anyone noticed! I will nail the star to the shed, and go plodding on. Best wishes! J S Ayer (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice
You were mentioned here. Pass a Method  talk  14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I.P. editing
I was wondering whether you have edited from I.P.s in the past week in the recent past. Pass a Method  talk  16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And just out of curiosity, why do you ask? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, there was an incident with an IP on wiktionary and they had your style. Once again, i apologize my brother. Pass a Method   talk  20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No harm done. Was the IP reverting you? :-) I never edit Wiktionary, and if I did, it would be under my username. I thought for a minute that you were confusing me with the 208.81. IP, which made me think that you were behind the new IP editor editing from the 89.24x., 78.146., and 92.xx. ranges. That's why I asked you back, because they seemed to have your style as well, if I may borrow the term. I feel that now would probably be a good time for me to send you a private email, to clear the air a little, if nothing else. Do you mind? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Adjwilley, thanks for helping out on my user talk page with the vandalism by Mangoeater1000. It is greatly appreciated. 72Dino (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make personal remarks
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. LalaLAND (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack to point out an editor who is two days old with fewer than 50 contributions where nearly half their contributions are AN/I related. By the way, I think you may have made a typo here. It should be "up with which I will not put", not up. I applaud your effort to avoid ending sentences with prepositions by the way. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; I have duly rectified that now. Appreciate your input. Regards, LalaLAND (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * “Churchill” on Prepositions. For your edification. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Be a Dude or Dudette!

 * Ha ha, thanks. One of my better typos :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
No time, off to be now, tomorrow I can do it. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
For your information, I mentioned your deletion on Joseph (son of Jacob) here. Pass a Method  talk  22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adjwilley please stop making Christcentric comments as you did at Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Pass a Method   talk  23:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. It would help if you gave me a diff to the comment you're referring to. If you're talking about this comment where I inserted a parenthesis about the Hebrew Bible being what Christians call the Old Testament, then I apologize if that came off as being Christcentric. I was trying to be conscious of my audience, and when you're using a generic term like Bible, it can be confusing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion on AN/I regarding an incident you may have been involved in. The thread is talk page interaction ban. Pass a Method  talk  13:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have responded there. I personally feel the RfC is a better path toward resolving our disagreement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

fyi
There is a similar discusion here. Pass a Method  talk  16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 update
Hey Adjwilley. I'm sorry to say that some bugs in code that the Article Feedback Tool is dependent on have resulted in us still not being able to deploy the latest version to en-wiki - although one advantage is that, because it's functioning on the German and French Wikipedias, the eventual release here will contain fixes for several newly-detected bugs without us having to bother you with them :P. At the moment, we're talking about several weeks of wait, I'm afraid - although the fix itself is not complex, it's dependent on Platform freeing up time to make and deploy it, and they're currently rather busy. I'll let you know when I have more news. Thanks :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call.
Good call on the power metallurgy/COI reverts. I agree with your reasoning. BTW, I am communicating with the user on my talk page, and so far it looks like he is willing to learn and follow our COI guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw the conversation, and I appreciate you taking the time to work with him. (sorry for the slow response.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)