User talk:Ben Moore/Archive 2

Autopatroller
Hi Jebus989, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to 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! Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 08:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Thanks for the edits... newbie here. Will be updating the other projects as well, any hints help (mostly you will benefit since you wont edit them anymore). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswd ito3 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk, the edits I've seen have been good though I can't overstate the importance of citing sources so that your additions are verifiable! Thanks Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi Jebus989. Thank you for you input. Parsing grammar or analysing semantics and lexical elements in order to prove bad faith where none was intended, could itself be perceived as a form of bad faith. The bigger picture: enormous bad faith is expressed by voters and questioners on every RfA and the project's entire goal is to get that changed. Therefore, every item brought into this project for possible discussion for reform, is brought in very good faith. If the section titles offend you, instead of prolonging a worthless discussion, do feel free to consider changing them yourself as suggested to all participants to the project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw you post and delete this on the associated talk page... You're saying, my pointing out your failure to AGF In actuality, other users pointing it out, and me adding a further comment is me failing to AGF? Well, in that case I must inform you that potentially perceiving me 'parsing your lexicon' in bad faith where no bad faith was intended, could itself be a further form of bad faith... (etc. etc. we could do that all day).
 * I would, again, argue with your bad faith though that phrase is starting to grate on me assumptions about voters and questioners intentions. I'd probably say they/we are just trying to assess admin candidates, some more rigorously than others, but all in the name of improving the encyclopaedia.
 * As a more general point, while it's great to have someone spearheading the RfA reform so single-mindedly, Wikipedia is a community-run project. I realise you have assembled other like-minded individuals to form a task-force but things like applying the formal 'discussion closed' template you to those criticisms seem unnecessary; no-one had posted their for ten days — it was hardly a runaway argument that threatened your proposals. Plus, if you're really keen to set policy and guideline following this reform you will need to adjust to receiving a lot more 'worthless discussion' about the specific wording of pages. Anyway, I wll make those changes, not to make any 'point' to you personally, just because I believe it's better wikiquette than what is currently written Je b us 9 <font color=#045FB4>8 <font color=#084B8A>9  ✰ 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok done. I won't, of course, change your user space version <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have done exactly  what  I  hoped and expect  the community  to  do. All Wikipedia initiatives generally begin  with  one user's ideas and  I  do  not  want  to be seen as 'spearheading'  the project  or pushing  my  own  POV. There has been a firm  consensus for a very  long  time that  some serious changes need to  be made to  RfA to  make it  a more pleasant  experience and hence attract  more candidates of the right  calibre who  have informed us quite clearly  why  they  are not  running  for office. A start  had to  be made somewhere, and that  start  was made with  material that  was assembled in  the very best  of good faith  in  my  user space. As soon  as it  was relevant and had some support, I  moved that  material to  project  space for the broader community  to  do  with  it  whatever they  wish, in  the hope of course that  they  too  are keen on seeing  some reforms finally  presented in  a way  that  might  get consensus. Threads that  do  not  advance a project  are one of the reasons why  many  Wikipedia initiatives have failed. If you  are interested in  RfA  reform, I do hope  you will  continue to  provide stimulus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish
Hi there,

I've replied to your oppose in an effort to clear things up.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful  One  15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra insight, I'll modify my !vote accordingly <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll fix my signature on your talk page accordingly! The  Helpful  One  15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Social Diaphragm (cf Phrenos: phrenia, phrenic - of the diaphragm, the heart, the mind)
Hello Jebus989,

I believe you re-supported my entry of 'Social Diaphragm' on the 'Diaphragm' page here in the wikipedia: Thank You! Very much indeed! I straightforwardly know, so straightforwardly, that this is the crucial missing concept in the non-understanding of schizophrenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralegh1973 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I think the edit to which you are referring is this. I merely reverted this edit, removing vandalism from the page. I have no comment on the validity of the term 'social diaphragm'. If you plan to recreate your article though, you should first review the general notability guidelines. If you then still feel the term warrants an article, you could create it in a sandbox in your userspace (e.g. by clicking here) (don't forget to include sources) and I would be happy to check it over before you move to mainspace to prevent another deletion <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

for RNA thermometer

 * Wow, thanks for the kind words :) <font color=#81BEF7>Je <font color=#58ACFA>b <font color=#0080FF>us <font color=#0174DF>9 <font color=#045FB4>8 <font color=#084B8A>9  ✰ 08:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree thats a really nice article. Good work! Alexbateman (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alex! <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 11:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those other fullas are right. Nice work Jebus989. --Paul (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers Paul! The DYK hook for it should be on the main page tomorrow evening (probably middle of the night where you are!) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! RNA's continued infamy is assured. I may be awake for it. --Paul (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Can you stop reverting my edits to Historical Jesus. I assure you they aren't vandalism although I would understand why precautions would be taken with any religion-related page. However, I am not making any uninformed or malacious edits. I'm simply trying to add his historical name. I can cite it if you like, but as long as you keep deleting it, I'm going to keep adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.123.154 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have no interest or affiliation with the article in question, there is no need to replace 'Jesus' with a rarely-used hebrew arabic alternative, which has no other mention in the article. Why not replace it with Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs? Although not vandalism, it is 'unconstructive'; you are pushing a fringe WP:POV on an article without community consensus. I'll leave watchlisters and other counter-vandals to patrol further edits you make on that page; but I suggest you leave it as-is, or instigate discussion on the article's talk page before repeating such changes <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems others agree, I suggest you leave it <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 21:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for RNA thermometer
Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

no index talkpage
Hi, if you think it is not important that is fine, so there is no reason for you to remove the noindex template, as it is not doing any harm and is a good fail-safe measure that bot-clawlers do not operate there. All sorts of talkpages and archives that are not supposed to appear in search results have been found to appear. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Examples? If JW is concerned by it, he can add it. Try finding his en.wiki talk page on google... <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PS, see WP:BRD. And if you don't really understand noindex, I wouldn't go around sticking it on other's talk pages without them asking you to <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Useful advice
Hi,

Thanks for the useful advice.


 * 1) 'See also's: I've already begun reducing these for the reasons you've stated.
 * 2) Breaking down articles: this process seems subjective to me so I try to approach each topic such as Degenerate nucleotide as if I were a high school student.
 * 3) Using 'Main article': blue wikilinks do not belong in section titles last I read, and the reader might like to check the 'Main article'. FA's such as the Sun use this technique.
 * 4) Adding 'stub's. My initial understanding is that by adding 'stub' those in the respective project come and rate the article. This has happened quite often, yet not so with others. So, once an article has my usual number of sections I no longer add 'stubs'. And, I delete the 'stub's.
 * 5) Really short leads. Probably! Still working on this one as often a new article seems better with sections. Then, small sentences can be added to the lead as a combination of 'Introduction' plus 'Abstract'.
 * 6) Excessive categorization: Already working through my articles to reduce these.
 * 7) Looking at examples of good articles and FA: I've been doing that and will continue to do so. But, I do find these or the ratings to be confusing and subjective at times.

If you have specific advice to achieve GA or FA status, it is most welcome. But, I've noticed that no science 'ology' article has achieved FA status, and this concerns me.

Thank you again for reading and commenting on my articles. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for VapBC
Materialscientist (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How to upload a file on Wikipedia
Hi, You had earlier replied to the above topic that was posted by me on the discussion board. I followed your directions and ended up getting this error message "File extension does not match MIME type". Can you help me with this?

Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariya1234 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at your thread <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 15:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lapel buttons
Oh, you mean badges! I thought your userpage-chap reference there was referring to Kraftwerk and their pledge (as seen on this 1975 episode of Tomorrow's World ) that their music would soon be entirely played on touchpads sewn into the flaps of their suits. Oh well... All the best,Plutonium27 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas, we wait in vain: Lapel buttons (musical instrument) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

?
Sorry but I have signed all my comments so far. Why told me to do this? --178.128.75.48 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the text I added to your talk page is a welcome template which just gives some general advice; it doesn't mean to imply you are doing anything wrong! <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 07:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK sorry and thanks!--178.128.75.48 (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Computational Biology
Hi,

Thanks for signing up to WikiProject Computational Biology. There is a growing list of tasks that you can help out with if you have a few free moments. See the discussion page. Alexbateman (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for autoarchiving the discussion of WikiProject Computational Biology. Alexbateman (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm don't thank me too soon! The bot appears to be using default parameters (archiving to dev/null after 24h; leaving 5 threads) rather than those I set and I'm not too sure why. I've manually archived the threads it removed but will try to fix the bot instructions <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh after reading the template documentation, it seems putting the template parameters on a single line was enough to confuse the bot! Should work as expected from now <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably...
This question was nonserious trolling by a banned user, so I had to delete it and your answer. Sorry about that. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's fine. A fair biological question in my eyes! <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Thanks! I would be keen to give reviewing a try, especially on a molecular biology article. I'll keep an eye out <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

James D. Watson GA review
Hello!

I'm the one who nominated this article for GA status. I will be working on this article for a longer time, maybe for a month. Since I don't live in US or UK, it will harder to find appropriate literature, epsecially about J. D. Watson and his works. Generaly speaking, literature about anything is hard to find here. I'll do my best.

Regards, --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wusten <font size="3" color="Dimgray">fuchs 14:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok best of luck! It might be worth tracking down some of the major contributors to the article to see if they want to help bring it to GA standard. Also, other interested collaborators may be found through the article talkpage or a relevant wikiproject <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ping
Hi Jebus, I've sent you an email. Hope you don't mind the intrusion! <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk 15:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much! Many thanks to you too, and everyone involved. Hopefully we can now replace some of the red links with decent articles <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Transcription start site
Hi Jebus. I've responded to your message at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter_Incident_Article_Fix-up_Coordination_Page. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied there <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mega Drive
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mega Drive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Jebus989
Thanks for welcoming me and for those useful links, i definitely can use them. Mh40 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you have any questions feel free to ask! <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 15:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Evolution as theory and fact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quotation mark
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)