User talk:Mark Miller/Archive 3

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

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

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

to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

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

Rocky Horror
I do not know what you were thinking at the time, but there was absolutely no reason for you to have ever moved The Rocky Horror Show to some other extremely long and extremely uncommon name. I have moved it back and removed the various references you have made to the supposed official name of the production (having it in block print above the name on the official website does not mean "Richard O'Brian's" is part of the title) and because the most common name anyway would be "The Rocky Horror Show".— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah. That's the name of the show. Whether it is "extremely long" long or not is a point of view. This can be referenced simply by looking at the titles of the French's scripts. It hasn't been just "the Rocky Horror Show in some time. It is the correct title.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if it is the new name. The fact is that "The Rocky Horror Show" is the most common name and you should not have moved the article.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter
The  2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Assisstance
hi i'm some what new here and was wondering if you can help me with a change you made here []. your change text seemed friendly enough! Bouket (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't use the video itself to reference the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

You deserve a barnstar!

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

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter
The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you owe ...
... User:Cynwolfe an apology. Regards Paul August &#9742; 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * So you are saying you'll apologize only if she does first? Let me repeat what I wrote on my talk page: Regardless of how you think Cynwolfe has behaved, if you feel that you have behaved badly, an apology is called for. Paul August &#9742; 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

DR/N
Hi, Informing you of this. Be— —Critical 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Uhm...with all due respect...if you are going to "quote" an editor.......perhaps you should be more accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially considering your dispute is over quotes!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, I am very much seeing how that would have been far better for this situation and in many cases overall. Especially on such controversial articles. In one article I am a major contributer on, I use the talk page much more than editing and wait a good amount of time before I make changes and they still don't always stick. But then talking out why the revert without any explanation isn't appropriate sometimes works. I will try to take that route more often. Thank you for your input.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that you had actually crossed the 3RR boundary in this dispute, so I'll be a bit sterner now that I realize that: 3RR is a pretty bright line. I'm not going to block you today (someone else might, though). At this point, you really need to back off of editing the article, and discuss the points, not your opponents.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

Mildred Seydell
Can you take a look at the lead sentence and see if grammatically correct. Any suggestions - see Talk. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ideas. Its giving us ideas how to improve the lead sentence and hook line. Ideas from an experienced editor is what we needed.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A Birthday cake for you!
Ahhhhh...thanks Gandydancer! Yummy!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Thank you for taking the time to make this post. Zahng has been extremly helpful and nothing he did attributed for my loss of faith in the process. I am not at all frustrated with the article or even with the editors who brought me to DR/N. They are not at fault for any feelings of loss of faith I have either, and wish to make it clear they have simply fought for the things they feel are right, in the best way possible. I am discouraged by the fact that after being asked to poke other mediators for further comment and to help continue the discussion I saw something I percieved as interferring with that process. Seeing another dispute while engaged in a DR discussion and then editing that article to return the disputed information without weighing in on the discussion at all is disruptive to the process itself. While this may not be something anyone else agrees with, I feel the way that was handled was purposely insulting by a single Admin. People use these processes believeing there is an issue and the flippant manner it was treated was beyond the pale for me. It shocked me and made me feel I was being belittled and blown off in a direct manner that goes against the spirit of this site. I have no idea what the administrator was thinking by treating the situation in that manner. A trout would have been a humorous way to handle it without making any accusations. I informed the mediator and made an ANI which I stated I could simply strike out (which leaves the text to not hide it) if it was not appropriate or if he felt the situation could be handled through him alone. I am disapointed, and very discouraged and feel my time here is being wasted. I will certainly have to cool down but I have also been told point blank by Manning to stay off that page unless I have a real issue and take that to mean I am not allowed to disuss any other ANIs as well. I don't have a history of making bad ANIs. In fact I can only remember making but one a while back in November. If I made others my mind is coming up blank.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is going to be a bit long, forgive me. What sometimes happens at ANI is the OP (that would be you in this instance) focuses too much on other people's conduct (Toddst1) and not their own. Some admins are more blunt, more sarcastic than others. It might be great if they could all be warm and fuzzy, but they're not. Todd reacted in a somewhat cryptic manner because, I'm assuming, he was honestly taken aback by your coming to ANI in the first place. Frankly, so was I. You have to understand that ANI is a very volatile and contentious forum. To some extent, every topic that is opened there requires some research and time by admins, and, understandably, if an admin thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the OP has no business being there, he or she may express their pique in a less than helpful manner. This kind of reaction works out okay when someone is really just making trouble. However, it doesn't work so well if someone is sincere. Think of it like a customer service representative who handles complaints all day long. It's a tough job and they have to size things up quickly or they'll never get anything done.


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


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


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

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


 * hi i support you i have had similar problems with those people. its just a place where people can feel powerful. i think you deserve respect but youre not going to get it here. i agree. if all the good contributors leave wikipedia then maybe people will see what happened to the site. i wish theres an alternative. Bouket (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your encouragement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yw. whats sad is that admins like that will still be aruond and they will have other reasons to blame for the site losing anything useful . but i dont know what else to do either, the enough regulars here defend each other and have attitude problems .. Bouket (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a difficult place for many people. It has a purposely high level of complication meant solely to guide an encyclopedic evaluation of information. It can also be an exciting and challenging place where discovery is as important as documentation. Wikipedia expands each editor’s own knowledge and challenges them to move forward by advancing information to make full use of by anyone. But as a community, Wikipedia has another level of complication, and that is the very editors who live within it.


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


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


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


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


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


 * Expectations sometimes exceed outcome. It happens every day. It’s discouraging. Sometimes we see things but we ignore it to not add to a situation and become involved or damaged in any way. So we look the other way and we don’t bother helping that person who might also need assistance. That’s all too easy. Stopping, taking the time and fully assisting when someone really needs it, I guess that’s just really hard.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Scientist, can I make an observation? Just one, I promise, since I wasn't involved in that ANI thread at all and only saw it in passing: right or wrong, it's often best to walk away and try not to carry grudges. However, that can be rendered more difficult if users who have little to do with anything come by and pour fuel on a fire: I am talking about Bouket, above (see this section for a motivation--and yes, I'm in there too). Pay it no mind. You're appreciated here as an editor, so don't be goaded into escalation. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you so much madsci for that lengthy reply i will have to read it several times to take it all in. the incident drmies is referring you to us actually at that was what todd considering "hounding". its interesting that drmies does not consider following me to your talk page hounding, and that he doesnt assume good faith after your lengthy talk about assuming good faith. but im learning thats how it is here. its like watching the american republican presidential debates. i didnt think i was trying to get you to escalate anything i was just supporting your feelings. if you took what i said any other way im sorry it wasnt meant that way. i just wanted to say you are not the only one to feel that the people in control dont care and only have their own interests and power high to think about. this response i see here from him or her just strengthens my feelings about this site. Bouket (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't give yourself too much credit, Bouket. I check on Amadscientist every once in a while to see if they got any madder--I think science and liberal arts ought to balance each other out. Like I said, Amadscientist is a respected editor and an unfavorable result at ANI doesn't make anyone feel good. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes someone comments and it encourages me to think about a situation. Sometimes another will join that discussion with honest advice. Don't mistake Drmies reply here as anything but that. We have contributed to a particularly bumpy ANI and I respect him as an editor. But there are no flames to fuel. I got upset and walked away when I felt things got out of hand when I believed I was doing the best I could, not that I was right or wrong, but just there asking. It's not right to walk away from a DR/N, but as the process is now I would suggest that as a possible route for editors as part of any process as it stands even if you just call it “Stepping back”. I didn't start the DR/N and there was, what I really saw as an honest attempt by all involved to attempt to respect that process. There is still a process, as bad as it went, and a consensus that obviously resulted from it. I am disappointed that the ANI resulted in the original “Resolved” result labeled as “Canvassing” and then having it changed to “Not an issue except for tendentious report / WP:Boomerang“. But I take responsibility for my actions for whatever they were in the brief exchange. But I am not seeking to further a dispute of any kind. I think there is always a goal for discussion and that is to clarify and focus things towards a positive outcome. I believe I have pointed out a perceived crack in the process when there are not more logical guidelines towards disruption and a better way for editors to achieve the goals the notice board is meant for. Cross discussion edit warring seems the only thing to call that..
 * I walked away from the DR/N but I also won’t remove that section from the article, so basically there exists a consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, Amadscientist, of the 99% declaration or whatever it's called. I was closing some AfDs yesterday and came across it. Since I'm in the discussion it wouldn't be proper for me to close it, but a quick count suggested to me that maybe a merge could be agreed on. But that really is going to be a judgment call on the part of the closer, and we may not get our way. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a section to see if it would generate interest. I think a merge is a good idea.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Rick Santorum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * Thanks for the clarification, that's helpful. I still disagree about the inclusion of the Clover piece - to me it seems less a fringe theory than a notable (and insightful) view about the genealogy of the movement. OWS is, after all, a political movement rather than a single event, so what "fringe theory" might mean in this context is unclear. Our standard reliable sources for current events, like mainstream newspapers, simply don't have the focus or the analytic tools to be able to talk about the deeper political affiliations, influences, and genealogies of mass movements; and it will likely be years before reliable scholarly work on this comes out. Clover is both an insider to the student protests in question and an academic, and the LARB is a new journal that doesn't exclusively consist of book reviews, but has a large number of political and social essays. I'd be for inclusion still, but I'm not hell-bent on it if you still don't feel these are compelling reasons.
 * Btw, the 24-hour block seems totally out of the blue. I didn't perceive you as edit-warring either...   Sindinero (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's look further into the information from the Clover piece and see if it can be established as mainstream in any fashion. Possibly just another source from a more mainstream media source.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I also support the unblock. Amad's edits were fine--looks like admin may have acted too fast without realizing the mistake, but thankfully Dreadstar seems like a cool admin. 완젬스 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He does seem like a cool admin. I appreciate the support and the unblock. I will make this a "learning moment" to better myself as an editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a thank you post on your talkpage Dreadstar but I am still blocked, so i will say thank you for the unblock here for now until the unblock takes effect.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just edit from an ip address and sign your posts with Amadscientist (talk) which will show up as Amadscientist (talk) then manually type in the time, ftw. 완젬스 (talk) 2:36pm EST —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC).
 * That won't work. It's an IP block. I just have to wait for Dreadstar to return. He's busy in real life. I could email another admin but that would be like going to Mom when Dad won't respond.=) I can wait. In no real hurry, hving the block unblocked was the important issue. These things can take a bit of time.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Give it a try now, I lifted the autoblock. Dreadstar  ☥   20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Hey, back
No pay stubs, just check-to-bank, but thank him anyway. Have you heard of The Age of Stupid? That's what keeps me editing &mdash; that, and ordinary little dogs. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No...I haven't, but the premise sounds intriguing and believe it or not...I think I actually get your point. LOL! My dodg generally stops me from editing. She will come up and try to jump in my lap while i'm on the computer. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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