User talk:Mark Miller/Archive 5

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice. 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) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the chart at OWS

 * (Received on my talk page)

Just to let you know, generally the policy at Wikipedia is for the images and info boxes to be placed within the section that they have context to. Your recent edit moved the infobox I created to a section unrelated. Could you possibly change that back to be consistant with guidelines? --Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. However, the first paragraph of the section is very short, and it's unlikely readers would take the information out of context in this instance. The edit is just a layout edit, to make the article slightly easier to read. I'm not very concerned, and if you want to move the box down a few lines, then go ahead. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that section has been copy edited and it does now contain the information in that section. I have struck out the comment on your page. Since you moved it here (I am aware how you like to keep your page clean) I will strike it out here as well.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Neoclassicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical period (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) 10:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
LOL! I love it. There's a barnstar barnstar!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy articles
From your post at Administrators' noticeboard: "North...slow down and back away please so others can actually comment. I have tried three times and keep getting an edit conflict. At this point I kinda give up, but if this makes it..." (et al.)


 * Just answering specific questions and providing specific examples! Sorry that you experienced editing conflicts, but they do happen sometimes! Best, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. I hope to see a response from one of the other two to my question.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI - The discussion regarding the Occupy article redirects that you commented about has been moved to Redirects for discussion. Best, Northamerica1000(talk) 02:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your good work with the Occupy articles. Funny how frantic some people are to delete perfectly good little articles in an encyclopedia that has a page for As easy as pie!  Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsubscribe
Amad, sorry you received the newsletter. I'll make sure no more will be sent to you.– Lionel (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this might be an issue, but you might check if you are listed as a member of one of the Christianity projects, and, if so, you might want to perhaps move yourself to "inactive" or remove your name. Like I said, I don't know if you are listed as a member of any, but that might have been an issue. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know which project they got my name from. I just object to their use of those member lists in this manner. However, if appropriate, then I wanted to be sure and let them know not to include me in further delieveries. It was not something I was aware could be done. Thanks for the comment!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally members of projects which share the WP:X banner template fall under the "umbrella" of WP:X. Most of the Christianity projects are inactive---we're just trying to get members interested in their projects again. We're gonna fix the system so it's easy and painless to unsubscribe. Sorry for the mixup and thanks for your understanding. – Lionel (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. This was clearly a good faith delivery of a newsletter that, as you say is under an umbrella project. My only question would be...do the other projects know that? I am also a member of project LDS. Is that a part of the umbrella? The reason I ask is that it is generally mentioned as "sister projects" so members understand the crossover and or limits to such. But it isn't a disaster or anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LDS better be part of the Christianity projects! I think they would be pissed if they were left out, lol. Keep in mind the newsletter is the Christianity newsletter. All sub/sisterprojects/denominations are supported. But it is coordinated at WP:X. It's the same with the new Christianity Noticeboard WT:XNB. The NB is for all Christianity issues, not just the Christianity WikiProject. In fact, my home project is WPCatholic. Anupam's home is WPMethodism. The benefit of a multi-project newsletter is that small projects can have a voice, and the larger projects save on admin and overhead. If a subproject wants to do their own newsletter and opt out--that's great! But until then, why not use Ichthus to get their message out to their membership? – Lionel (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes...they probably would be a little annoyed. That is a massive project from the sounds of it and it sounds like you guys are working very hard to get participation going again. I will also note that this answered a question I have been wondering about as to how these newsletters get delivered. I would hate to be the guy that had to manually deliver even 100 of them one by one! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks so much!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I hope it made you smile! Have a nice night! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. 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) 16:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination)‎
Currently, you're down as "Keep and merge". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't vote for both. If you want content kept at the existing place, you vote "Keep". If you want content moved to another article, you vote "Merge"  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Except the Keep is for the article and the merge is a suggestion for the future. I think you may want to leave others alone in this consensus as you appear to attempting to side step community decisions.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, AFD is not a vote. It is a community consensus discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. 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) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Merge
Hi Amadscientist, thanks for supporting WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you've been working on the WP:WikiProject Merge page. It looks like you copied the directions from Help:Merging, then split it to Template:PMGGUIDE. In case you didn't know, WP:Copying within Wikipedia applies in all namespaces. The "from" note is a good start, but edit summary attribution is required. I will place Copieds unless you would like to practice. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remember that in the future. I will take care of it as practice.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I noticed that you are not including a link back to the source article when doing merges. For example, would be better as  .  the appropriate dummy edit. Also,  's   should point to the source article.  as an example. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging and Articles for Deletion
Mad scientist, it's best to put merge proposals on hold during an articles for deletion discussion. The mere existence of such a discussion tells you that some editors don't see any content worth merging, and the only AfD results that allow the merge to proceed are merge and no consensus. I commented on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on there. I didn't merge the article, I selectively added information to an article about her husband the vice president. What is wrong with that. Is an AFD on the proposed article enough to keep editors adding content to another article? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. 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) 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Merge
Portal:Merge, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Merge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Merge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter
The January 2012 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.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE  X  00:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap  talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Merge


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. 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) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge
FYI: I think you did a good merge on Mariology of the popes. Another one awaiting action is Roman Catholic prayer if you feel like doing it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. 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) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging procedures
Hi. :) I appreciate all the work you're doing merges, but wanted to remind you that there is an essential step for attribution: providing a direct link to the article from which you are copying in your edit summary. This is the one step that should not be omitted; the history of the article needs to include this link. As Help:Merging notes, "Save both, and note the merger (including the page names) in the edit summaries. (This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" I see that you've done it with some merges, but not others.

Can you please go back to those articles into which you've merged content without a link in edit summary and add them, as recommended at Copying within Wikipedia, by using a dummy edit? I usually use text something like  That will help people find the precise diff. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Moonriddengirl. I understand the mistake made and have begun using the attribution requirement in the edit summary as stated and have looked into the dummy edit procedures but have not had the time to attempt it yet. I was given this information by User:Flatscan who also noticed I was using the wrong oldid number and corrected it and the edit summary and left me links to. He has been incredibly helpful and all the information is being shared as part of WP:PMG. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed...
You accidently reverted me, not the sockpuppet of Penguinluver1431. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I did. Sorry, but another has caught it and reverted back!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno
Hi, I have submitted Dan Leno for GA consideration and I notice from the reviewers list that you are keen on subjects connected to the theatre. Would you be interested in reviewing? I would be most grateful if you could. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a quick glance and think it's a very nice article, however it uses at least one image that may not be licensed correctly and there may be a few other similar problems. best to review the criteria for GA and i will look further at the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll get onto it right away.   Which images are in question? -- Cassianto (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, may I ask that you please hold discussions about the article on either the article talk page or the GA page, as I have worked on this article for a few years and would like to join in the discussion. Thanks very much!  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. 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) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Amadscientist: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks. 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) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating templates
There's no need to create template pages for WikiProject page parts when they are only used on a single page. They should really be created as subpages of the project. I've moved some of the templates you created as follows:

WOSlinker (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Moorer article
Hello,

I just nominated the article on Stephen Moorer for deletion, and noticed that you had attempted this before. I don't feel that Wikipedia is the place for subjects that are only noteworthy to a regional audience and not Wikipedia in general. Perhaps this article ought to be merged into the Pacific Repertory Theatre article? In any case, I thought you may want to know. Thanks, Kkbay (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. 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) 21:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Touré
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Touré. 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) 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

99% redirct
Can you point me to the discussion where it was agreed that this was a suitable redirect for the OWS wiki project ? Mt king  (edits)  10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There was none. I set up the redirect, but if you object for any reason it can be discussed on the talk page of the project. If no one objects I will not object to it being given up.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. 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) 22:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
(This barnstar was retracted by the giver and this post deleted.)

WikiProject OWS
Thanks! I learned a great deal about the WikiProject Process!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the barnstar :-) and you've done a great job at WP:OWS! I've joined up to see if i can lend a hand. benzband  ( talk ) 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Malware report
Since you are getting error messages from a site other than lds.org - I would suggest that you look for something on your computer (or your DNS service) that is redirecting DNS requests from the proper website lds.org to an improper one themormonworker.org - as I have had no problems with lds.org as reported by the other users. -- Trödel 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the report was a mistake and has been stricken. I clicked the wrong reference when checking after an edit and hit the mormonworker.org reference which was next to the primary reference which I believe was lds.org. I have removed the section that was devoted to the improper link as having no context to the article and the bad link which is malware.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Pending barnstar
Can you make an OWS-themed barnstar? I have somebody I wish to give the first one to... 완젬스 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He already has (and a good one too) take a look at WP OWS barnstar  benzband  ( talk ) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's so good! 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A much-deserved barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA reviewing
Hey dude. I just wanted to thank you for reviewing this article. Let me know if you need anything. Cheers. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) I was wondering if you can give some points on where to improve the article. I wonna get it to FA standards and seeing how is this my first GA article and first FA try, I am gonna need all the help I can get. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011
My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I generally don't give interviews. I also feel it would be unfair to participate in this when I didn't participate in the dispute resolution inquiry-also off wiki. I feel anything I could contribute would have to be as open as Wikipedia and not past it's onsite/official offsite functions of the foundation etc. I wont sign a waiver for this, sorry. I will give you this much as I have spoken about it before. It was not represented in the media accurately and was blown way out of proportion. Many, if not most of the stories misreprested Wikipedia and me as an editor. Thank you for your interest.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks for taking the time to respond and to explain your position and reasons for not participating. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012. 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) 02:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DR
I have a new version ready for your perusal at the noticeboard. It incorporates your suggested sentence. Cheers! Be— —Critical 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise
I just had a thought. You don't want the white powder paragraph in the article, and I think the pamphlet section is way too long. What would you think if I dropped the powder issue in exchange for you cropping the pamphlet section down to a paragraph? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bradley Manning
Hi, I was wondering whether there were issues at the Bradley Manning GA that you felt needed to be addressed, or where we go from here. I'm not hugely familiar with the GA process, so my apologies if it's too soon to ping you, but if there's anything I can do to clear up a concern, please just let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can begin the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a bit confused now as you said you were withdrawing but have started the review. Also, the lead image is public domain because it's the property of the United States govt, and the image of him as a child has a fair-use rationale, so nothing is needed from OTRS. Or did I misunderstand? Sorry if I did. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from the review. Sorry. I should mention it's with no prejudice so don't worry about anything I mentioned in the prereview notes. Going to be too busy to deal with it now with a pending mediation to deal with. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied to you on my talk page about the images (and thanks for the advice). Don't worry about withdrawing, I understand. Not sure what to do now though (do I put it back at the end of the queue?). Any advice would be appreciated. You can reply here if you prefer -- I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked some advice and will do what is best so that it doesn't show up as a second GA nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I appreciate that, and good luck with your mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I shouldn't blame mediation, but the choice to clear my work load and there are some issues that make me uncomfortable reviewing the nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation comment
I edited the statement that you quoted from me, so you may want to update it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't work that way. If it comes up I will simply point here to show that you altered the quote. Sorry, but I have already made a reply in a formal mediation to your comment. You need to edit the comment in a manner that reflects that you have CHANGED the text AFTER it was responded to. Thanks for letting me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to do anything. The text you quoted changed; I'm just letting you know as a courtesy. What you do with that is your business.  Equazcion  ( talk )  21:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold Idea to Renew the Occupy Wall Street Article
How about we, together, create an entire new article for this movement under a different name? We can show the administrators and possibly the higher elite that our article should be final, and the other article shall be deleted. Whatacha think? I'm willing to work with you and I have tried but there are too many OWS insiders on the OWS Article Page. I know they are because on the OWS site they have a chatroom meant to discuss the Wikipedia page. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You should edit the existing article and collaborate with with the editors there and be bold, but accept consensus while be sure to address your own concerns as well as the concerns of other editors. We don't need to rebuild articles but work with editors to improve the ones that exist.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm...OK. Well then "Encyclopedic Joshua", please be aware that what you are suggesting is a POV fork as described at WP:POVFORK. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again. Thanks. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How can I mediate anything? From what I am guessing, this may be Centrist Fiasco. If so you have been blocked or banned. In which case you need to take the proper route to re-establish the trust of the community. The first step would be to deal with your current block or ban situation through an administrator in good faith. This may mean "riding out' your block if it is temp or making a good argument as to why you should be reinstated. Don't let your anger at situations you see as unfair, allow your temper to over-ride your logic. Seek out an admin to request unblock and read up on the guide, Guide to appealing blocks. You must show that you are willing to collaborate and work with others, follow the rules, and not be disruptive. Show that by following the rules, not being disruptive with sock puppets and collaborate by working with the proper admin to request your unblock in the proper manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, pal. I'll just stay away from the article for now on. I will, if necessary, put up suggestions on your Talk Page though. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...if you are back with sanctions lifted i will not mind that. However, since you have offered no explnantion I have to discourage you from using my talkpage in an effort to persuade me of your issues in what could be seen as an attempt to game the system.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Camelio
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brian Camelio. 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) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The discussion involves another editor, but I linked to a discussion you had with that editor on your Talk page. So, I am notifying you just in case you're interested in participating.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

hi
the you are correct is the correct grammar, you had it right first time. Penyulap  ☏  08:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe...
We could all take a week off. The moderator should be given a chance to wash off all the shit he got on his shoes. I'd think about holding a return to mediation as an option. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Be just apologized and understands your position without mocking or patronizing it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Divergent sandbox article
i just noticed User:Amadscientist/The Rocky Horror Show test page, which has by now diverged from the article. I was trying to clean up categories which have userpages in them. Since you may want to save this page for any future work on the article, i didnt nominate it for deletion, but instead i am dropping you this note to ask you to remove or place colons (you know, Category:Foo) in the categories. not a big deal, thanks for the hard work, your friendly neighborhood compulsive editor.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deviant art
I don't appreciate you jumping into my post to Penyulap. I didn't suggest for him to do anything wrong, and I don't think he would do anything wrong anyways. A warning like that makes it seem like you don't think he can be trusted. INeverCry  04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith. You could as well. I warned only not to use images that are copy protected. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is warning someone about copy vio and blocking assuming good faith? INeverCry   04:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is telling someone here on Wikipedia about your collection from deviant art not a legitimate reason for a simple warning?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My collection is for my own personal use on my own computer, which isn't a copyright violation as long as I don't distribute it, make commercial use of it, etc. I didn't mention or suggest anything that violates copyright. You gave a warning where nothing wrong had been done or suggested. INeverCry   05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why it was a warning. If you had done something wrong it would have been speedy deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a really nice person. One of the nicest I've met in a while, and one of the most helpful. Thanks for watching over us. Have a great night. INeverCry   05:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist you didn't assume good faith at all. It is perfectly legal and allowable and normal to collect copyright work on your own computer in many countries. You may have made assumptions, but they were biased to your own geographical jurisdiction. I do like and welcome talkpage stalking, but I think I should put up a sign like on Auntie Pesky's page, 'mandatory truce zone'. My talkpage is a place where all accusations and warnings should be directed at me, or in turn, at those people directing such things at me :D Penyulap  ☏  08:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From a completely uninvolved point of view, Amadscientist seems to have acted in good faith, certainly with his first post which is exactly as it appears - a warning not to walk down a particular path that may be available. Even if the editor has no intention of taking that path, there is nothing wrong with warning of its existence. Despite assertations that he is acting in bad faith to assume that the image suggestions were for upload, it is not bad faith if he thinks - and there is no reason not to - that the uploader may be unfamiliar with the licensing terms that wikipedia adheres to.  In this case Amadscientists comments are perfectly reasonable.


 * Amadscientist makes no mention of what you are doing with images on your own computer - his concern is only that you do not make trouble for yourself by uploading said images to Wikipedia. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.


 * I would say that nobody is acting in bad faith, but some are getting riled up and possibly resent the impression of being told what to do, and posting provocative replies is probably not the best response, and I should know - having my own fair share of talk page fights. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. 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) 11:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
When you have time, please take a look at the current proposal, is this closer to what you were suggesting? — GabeMc (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, and for the sake of conflict resolution, what specifically are you opposed to in the current working prose? — GabeMc (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "crying" is the only word that's been inserted since you were in support. Can you tell me what I could do to better accomodate a fair compromise? — GabeMc (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When you have time, please take a look at the current proposal, I think it's pretty close to what you originally reccomended. Any input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Stepping up"
"Stepping up" means to take the action to a higher level than ANI, to RFC, RFC/U, ArbCom, etc., which is what I said in the same conversation and again in the closing statement. You are welcome to shop your complaint if you choose, but I think it will be difficult to find someone who sees it the way you do. Consider reading it again, including my close. If I was wanting to block you, I wouldn't have given you the notification above on 3RR, would I?  I was even nice enough to not slam you with the big ugly WARNING template, instead just giving you a polite notice. There are no bad guys here, just differences in opinion. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not shopping to take differnet situations to different editors or admin. Why don't you try re-reading those. Don't assume what I am looking for your assumptions are flat out wrong almost EVERYTIME.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir, with all due respect (and you do deserve respect) you accused me of altering policy and adding discussion first on BRD in an ANI that had nothing to do with that and was a false claim. You knew that the complaint stemmed from my NOT using discussion first to make changes on BRD and When EquazCion canvassed he got at least to editors to join and it was Equazcion who demaded discussion first be added to the essay. You cherry pick your administrative duties and choosewhen and wehn not to react and use the worst tactics. I beieve you give more weight to people clearly in the wrong simply to get the reaction you want to ban people. That is disgusting. You have proven you are NOT an accurate or well meaning administrator. You take sides based on your own feelings, personal dislikes and post them for all to see. I clearly see why Equazcion and Becritical are given far more attention and reaction on ANI even when they are complaining about shit that has no bases you spoon feed them. You should be de-syops.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I sent POLICYPRICK to RFD where it is on the way to be deleted. It was inappropriate for Wikipedia, per your observation.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...you do realize that it was his intention to"step up" this sort of behavior at your very suggestion of stepping up. You did not tell them it was meant as per policy you just said step it up and clearly this is what Becritical believed you meant. I don't know why you warned me about 3RR. Your own words about such warnings do not leave me thinking this was an accurate statement, when you confessed on ANI to using warnings to get a reaction out of editors to ban them. Also it appears that warnings on Wikipedia are only given after an incident occurs. That is what Equazcion has been telling people I encounter or talk with so....I have no clue why you warned me about 3RR. Heck...I only made two reverts that time so for all I know you were making it up.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you for that. Believe it or not, talking these things out shows more than just watching anothers actions. Sometimes people just piss each other off. And sometimes they eventually get over it. I am slowly getting over it, but thanks again for taking a moment to post here! I don't think you ahould lose adminship over this. That was to harsh a critisicm.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I warned you because I saw 3 edits in just under 24 hours (one was from the day before, but was still within 24 hours), and the last thing I wanted to see was B taking you to 3RR. I left a personal note as a favor, as a "hey, you are getting close, watch out".  I wasn't taking sides, I was trying to prevent you accidentally creating a situation where you could be drug to 3RR.  Any time I see an edit war situation at 3Rs, I always warn.  Always.  I don't want to see it at the boards, they are full enough, and full of drama.  I would do the same for anyone, not just you.  I don't jump down B's throat, but then I don't jump down yours either.  I leave personal notes instead of big ugly WARNING!!!! templates most of the time.  I clearly told him that step up meant RFC, etc., I told him to use the official channels, and once I saw that he did something silly, I went to get it deleted.  Had you brought that to my attention on my talk page, I would have done the same, I just happened on it because I stalk Drmies page.  I'm not taking sides on this, and I genuinely do not care what you guys decide is on that page.  I might disagree with some of your methods, but I disagree with some of his as well.  My goal is keep the drama down so you can find a solution, or point you to the proper board to find resolution, which isn't ANI or 3RR.  If I ever leave a warning or notice on your page and you disagree or think I'm wrong, just politely ask me on my talk page to explain.  I will either provide the explanation and/or diffs, or if I'm wrong, I will go to your talk page, retract, and apologize.  Most people find me quite reasonable, even if they disagree with me from time to time.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you see Dennis saying "step it up"? The only thing close to that is his comment here to 'bump it up', which is clearly referring to DRN, the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is a step in the overall Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process; and it is very clear that User:BeCritical understood that Dennis was talking about the WP:DR process, because BeCritical actually refers to Arbitration, followed by Dennis mentioning WP:RFC/U and Arbitration.  "Stepping it up" and/or "bumping it up" has nothing to do with a suggestion to go to more extreme behavior in an attempt to elicit a sanctionable reaction from you.  Nor do any of the other comments by Dennis even suggest such a thing be done, or has been done.


 * Secondly, you were indeed at the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR with three clear reverts in 24 hours, Had you reverted again within the next 26 minutes (yes, it's just that strict of a line), you could have been blocked without further warning, since you had been warned about 3RR several times in the past - it was very generous of Dennis to warn you.  You were edit warring against multiple other editors.  And just a reminder that you don't have to cross the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR to be blocked for Edit Warrring, so be more cautious and find consensus on the talk page instead.


 * Dennis is a fine admin and has been nothing but helpful and nice to you, I think you should return the favor, show him some Good Faith and stop the accusations of wrongdoing on his part. Dreadstar  ☥   19:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest you reflect on User:Bbb23's comment in a later section about your wildly incorrect "egg people on" accusation; I fully agree with User:Bbb23's view on it. Dreadstar  ☥   19:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Dreadstar, that you were unable to find the statement, it may have been altered or deleted. I have not checked. As for the 3RR mention, as I stated it was in reference to a claim by another editor that warnings are only given after an incident and not before. Clearly warnings are given BEFORE and incident occurs. I have no doubt that that Dennis is a fine admin and again it wasn't as much what he may have meant it was what it looked like to other editors and what they took from that. And one last thing. I would ask you to simply to understand that the admin accused me of wrong doing and made a statement that was not accurate, to me that looked like wrong doing. While it doesn't help any situation to hurl accusations it also doesn't help to tell one editor to not make accusations when another has done the same. You are all decent admin, but everyone makes mistakes...even you and even me. It doesn't matter if one editor is an admin and another is just an editor, we all have reason to discuss these things and i am very happy that Dennis replied today as I have. No need to make this more than it is at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've examined all three diffs by Dennis in that ANI discussion and none of them even mention "stepping it up" as you describe, the very first edit mentions "bumping it up" to DRN just as I said.first edit, second edit and last edit. So if you saw "stepping up" with a different meaning somewhere, then you'll need to prove that with a DIFF, and until then, I strongly recommend you discontinue and even retract your accusations.  I have no idea what you're talking about when you're referencing warnings and comments by another user, but warnings are givin before and after "incidents," depending on the situation, and in some cases a warning is not required at all! You need to read and become more familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, you seem to misinterpret a number of them, and then you make what appear to be false accusations against others based on those misinterpretations - and when others, including admins attempt to explain it to you, you stand defiant instead of humbly accepting their helpful advice and information.  You've shown no evidence that Dennis did anything wrong; and from everything I've seen, he was absolutely correct in his warnings and comments about your editing.  I see this same tendency in your editing on articles and their talk pages, and your dealings with other editors there.  I'd strongly recommend you re-evaluate your own editing.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * {copy) User:Bbb23's comment in a later section, I take everything Administrators say to me seriously, including advice they feel I should dwell on by others they may have seen elsewhere. I looked at the link you left me but was unable to find the comment. Regardless, I will take your comments seriously and hope you realize I take my work here seriously as well and look to this kind of advice. If you have a quote you can leave it on my talk page so I'll know what he stated.--Amadscientist 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this comment. I have your talkpage watchlisted; you can reply here so we can keep the thread together - I'll be sure to see it and reply as needed. Dreadstar  ☥   20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar is correct. It was "Bump it up" as seen in this diff . Dennis simply didn't correct me, probably (and this is an assumption) because "bump it" and "step it" do not have differring meanings. But Dennis Brown did not say "step it up". It was "bump it up". It was this post that concerned me more where he stated it meant whatever they wanted it to mean and the actions immediatly after this lead me to believe they took that as any action they felt was justified. So, for the acctual words used, I was innaccurate and mistaken and I extend an apololgy to Dennis Brown for that mistake.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took my comment wrong, but I meant what I said, "I think you may have to bump it up a notch to get any action. This isn't really an "incident" as much as it seems like a long term pattern of acting like an obstructionist. "  Note "incident" in quotes, which is the "I" in ANI.  ANI is for incidents that require immediate action.  Nothing you did required an admin jump in and take action that minute.  ANI is not for dealing with long time issues like obstructionism, incivility or edit warring.  I tend to use the quoted "incident" often, as many people think that ANI is the catch-all place to just complain about other users, and it isn't.  (search the archives, I point out that the "I" in ANI stands for "incidents" regularly) In the dispute resolution hierarchy, you have talk pages, Wikettique, ANI, RfC-RfC/U, ArbCom, etc. You work at the lowest level, then bump it up (step it up) if you can't find resolution at the lower level.  I'm not the only one that uses that type of terminology, it is relatively common and actually fits the descriptions of the hierarchy system. I didn't correct the term "step it up" because they both mean about the same to me, and I don't like to get bogged down in minutia.  I answered your questions at ANI when they were peppered with overtones  in a sincere fashion.  I tried to give you a polite heads up that you were approaching 3RR  with a generic summary and header, simple message, hand written.  I think I've been quite civil in this thread as well.  I didn't come here to get you to retract your unkind remarks.  I have been extremely generous in my offering of good faith, more than most people, I dare say.  I've taken extraordinary steps to explain all this, which is unusual in most situations like this, as the other person usually understands my reasoning and doesn't question my good faith, even if they disagree with me on my observations. I had hoped by now you would understand my motivations for coming here.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By now? No...I thought I had at the point I stated "Thank you for that. Believe it or not, talking these things out shows more than just watching anothers actions. Sometimes people just piss each other off. And sometimes they eventually get over it. I am slowly getting over it, but thanks again for taking a moment to post here! I don't think you ahould lose adminship over this. That was to harsh a critisicm.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)" But another editor/admin did point out the error and i had to oblige him as they were correct. Not as a means to stretch this out...although i really don't mind reasonable discussion on my talk page by admin who are attempting to show me where and why I went wrong. That, and i also don't have a problem making apologies if I believe I did make an error. And I am sure I mistook your words more from what I percieved in other editor actions and not just what you said, kind of stupid of me no matter how you look at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I am hopeful that you and B can move forward and find a resolution, if not on the talk page, at another place like WP:DRN.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I focused so much on the wording (bump vs. step) is because I wanted to make sure we were all looking at the very same comment, because there is no way I could possibly interpret Dennis' statement the way you did, Amadscientist; and no one else gave any indication that they took it the way you did, quite the contrary, everyone seemed to understand exactly what Dennis was referring to and that was to 'bump it up' to tne next step in the Dispute resolution process, the only one who seemed to take that comment as an exhortation to behave badly in order to elicit a sanctionable response was you, Amadscientist. Now that I know we're talking about the exact same statement, it's the not a problem of exact wording, it's the intent and interpretation of the words that all of us read, words that were seeminly misinterpreted soley by you.
 * So anyway, hopefully that's all cleared up. As to the behavior of others, if you think another editor ramped up with bad behavior to elicit a sanctionable response from you, please provide evidence of that so we can take appropriate action.  If you like, you can email me the evidence and I'll look at it.  I haven't noticed that on the article talk pages I watch, but then, I don't see everything.... :)  As far as "by now", your recent comments still had criticism of Dennis, indicating that you thought he made a mistake - which tends to push aside any associated 'thanks' you may have added, so that's why I think Dennis phrased it that way - neither he nor I can see any mistake he made, nor can we identify others who mistook what he said.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dennis took care of one issue that I have already sought the advice of another admin on. The other issue I saw was similarly asked to a different admin as it was a different issue with a different editor and sought an opinion with no editor named but Dennis Brown and my perception that the editor took this to mean taking action by other means. I have as yet to see if they even replied actually. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Polanski
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. 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) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review of Princess Theatre (Edmonton)
There has been some discussion of whether or not your review is going forward. If you have other, more pressing obligations at the moment, would you be opposed to returning this article to the WP:GAN pool? I appreciate your support and apparent interest in having taken this article onboard. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like you also took on Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)/GA1 on April 19, the same day you took on Princess Theatre. Should that one also be returned to the reviewing pool? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. I tried to do this once before but screwed it up.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've just set it in motion; hope I don't screw it up too! Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review of Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule
This article has been on hold since late April. It appears that work has been progressing on the article as per your notes, but as the reviewer, the job falls to you to verify the editors' work. WP:GAN suggests a hold period no longer than one week and they've had a month, so perhaps it's time to revisit the page and pass or fail it. --Rawlangs (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request re: "Formation of the New York General Assembly"
I am convinced that you and other editors wishing to include this language in the OWS article are critically ignoring WP:V, and I have requested mediation here. The request is still pending and I don't believe any discussion can yet take place, but I wanted to at least notify you of the request. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems odd to go straight to mediation especially since Gandydancer and I have both agreed that the source needs to be looked at closer and that other references could strengthen the prose. It seems to me you are becoming a warrior to keep out information you just don't agree with. As I said...work with editors and not against them. Mediation at this point, when we are trying to acknowledge and address you concerns is not exactly something that may be percieved as a good faith, I will assume so, but you are becomming so aggresive I suggest walking away for an extended period to cool off and comeback when you have cleared your head. We have all worked together well before and i am certain we can again...but I would have been more inclined to participate in DR/N on this before mediation. That seems like being to quick on the draw to me in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You all seemed to acknowledge that the source did not support the prose, but shrugged your shoulders that it was good enough, and the disputed text was reinserted. There was no further discussion or attempt to address the concerns I raised -- for example, by editing the text to remove the unsubstantiated claim about Graeber being responsible for the "formation" of the NYCGA, and replace it with something that tracks what the text actually says.  If you were amenable to something like that, your Talk comments did not reveal this.


 * The rest of your comments are neither appropriate nor appreciated. However, as long as we're speculating as to the supposedly improper motives of other editors, I think you and BeCritical have a fixation on promoting anarchism (a fringe ideology), and I think that fixation is interfering with your ability to neutrally reflect subject matter with a proper balance of mainstream views against marginal or fringe views.  It is starting to look very much like a COI, and although I have refrained from bringing this up, your insistence on questioning my motives suggests I should at least mention it to you.


 * In any event, I don't see how you can accuse me of attempting to "rewrite history" (as you did at the Talk page) when all I am trying to do is prevent a couple Wikipedia editors from writing history that is not found in any sources. If, for you, "working with other editors" is just shorthand for "going along with every improper thing an editor wants to do with an article on a subject he's interested in", I'm not interested. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears the request was moved. I changed the link in my original post above.  I believe that the request is still pending. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I cannot speak for Becritical, but I am not promoting any ideology and I dispute your claim that anarchism is fringe. LOL! It is as ancient a concept as democracy if not older, as it was anarchism that spawned democracy and then republicanism. It is a Greek and Roman political concept that I have great interest in because of its link to such subjects as the Comitium where the general assemblies of the Roman Monarchy and Republic met as well as Rostra where the speakers had stood facing the senate for centuries untill one man turned and faced the people in the Roman forum. Anarchism is also very much apart of American history and is how our society and country were formed. "we the people..." is more than just a preamble but it is an anarchist decree. We..without a ruler will determine our own fate as set by. This is all great OR on my part, but it is just my opinion and simply to demonstrate that my interest is not in anarchy as an ideal or ideology, but for its social context to this subject. At first I had great concerns because of the way the media portrays anarchy in the news, but the references themselves are not as "off base' in their interpretations of anarchism. It is not a revolution or a call to violence. It is not good vs evil. It's just how things were when OWS in New York began. All of the original main figures are outspoken about the subject and it is not a question of any BLP concern when everything about each person is referenced and mainstream, undisputed fact. It's not a stretch to show, discuss and write the article in relationship to due weight of the facts. Anarchism is indeed far more represented in sources then the article right now and how much to actually give weight to is always going to be a hot issue with any subject.


 * When I say "work with" other editors, I mean just that. Don't be a road block, be an alternative route. If we don't take that route we may still make note of it and adapt it as needed. By the way...no one from the discussion actually changed that prose. I simply changed back the wording in the lede from another discussion per the talk page. GandyDancer and I have continued to discuss sourcing and yes, we did decide that we should take a closer look at the original source. Please check the discussion. As for claims of OR they are easy to be made on both sides but I would warn that when you begin to state that others are the ones doing something...those others are going to have no choice but look closer at your claim and what you are asking for. You gave away a few mistakes in your need to use the movement in the discussion and that made me think that you are using some bias you may not yet see yourself, to sway your perception of any mention of anarchism. you seem too worried how this will paint the movement. This isn't about the movement. it's about the New York protest and in specific about the origins. You can't re-write history and there are too many instances where the reasons why anarchism as an ideology was used at the beginning. I see this as a focus issue. We need to be clear what the origins pertained to without taking a blind eye to not offend the movement. It isn't about ideology. It is about references and sources, due weight, focus and clarity as well as encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to take your comments seriously when you argue that anarchism is not a fringe ideology, and especially when you try to tell me that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is an "anarchist decree". This all just strengthens my suspicions that you believe anarchism is not given enough attention by the sources and are striving to "correct" that lack of attention.


 * That said, none of this has much to do with the current dispute. You're trying to say something that the source simply doesn't say.  The reasons you want to do this might point to a discussion of why you want anarchism to be given greater prominence, but it doesn't especially matter why you want to do it, because WP policy says it can't be done.  And, to put it bluntly, your proposed article text, and the apparent motivations behind the proposal, are precisely what WP policy seeks to prevent -- WP editors concocting a narrative to be quietly dispensed to readers who are unaware it is the whole-cloth invention of some random amateur on the Interwebs.


 * I have to confess I don't know what you were trying to say with most of the above. There is a lot of policy jargon but no clear point.  I will say, though, that it's not especially easy to make an OR claim, because a source substantiating the proposed text is always an absolute defense to a claim of OR.  But if you had that, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. . .  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! This only goes to show that you are just attacking with little knowledge of the situation itself. I didn't propose any text. In fact...I didn't even write that line of prose and I myself have disputed it. THAT IS WHY WE WERE STILL DISCUSSING IT when you went for mediation. I am not trying to do anything but use the sources and the claims that are fact in the article. It is you who seem to want to exclude referenced claims with RS for personal reasoning and taking offense to how paint the movement. I think you simply misunderstand what is happening for one, and think it is because you are letting your emotions get the better of you right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just silly. You've been arguing in favor of inclusion of the unsourced claim—so yes, you have proposed article text.  And that text is currently in the article.  Despite that you claim you were "still discussing it", you had concluded that the source supported the claim as it was written (which it doesn't).  The disputed text was reinserted and each of you indicated you had already made up your mind and weren't interested in giving any further consideration to the complaint that the claim is not substantiated by the source.  You, in particular, essentially told me to stop arguing because my view was in the minority—a clear confusion of "consensus" with straight majority voting among editors, if I ever saw one.  It was definitely time to proceed to the next step.


 * I'm going to ignore the rest of your comments, e.g. those saying I am uninformed, editing for "personal reasons", or letting my emotions get in the way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus that I have lived with, yes. And I will defend that consensus until you can change my mind...and you haven't. Why the need for dispute resolution process if editors are attempting to address the concern. Yes, there is a consensus, and yes, I am defending it because you have the SAME arguement I made and it didn't work then and I can actually see Becriticals point better now. But we are looking for further references and doing research. That is what we do. We look at the sources and what is newly available or may not have been considered before. But I did not propose the text. It was copy edited and went through a lengthy discussion. If you want to propose a rewrite to adapt it, go ahead.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That whole sequence of events is quite irrelevant. You are arguing for inclusion of article text X based on sourcing argument Y.  Thus, X and Y belong to you just as surely as if they had been your sole personal invention after months of patient study and prayerful meditation atop the highest mountain in Tibet.  In any event, I shouldn't have to tell you that "consensus" is not an excuse to ignore core policy.  Editors should work together, but that doesn't mean editors can gang up and agree to break the rules. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with that. I am not participating in something you can't even manage to be accurate with. Your hostility seems directed at me for a specific reason and frankly I have no idea why. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Amadscientist. This is just to let you know that I fixed the formatting of the mediation request, and it is now located at Mediation Cabal/Cases/04 June 2012/Occupy Wall Street. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Please comment on Talk:Ambrose
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ambrose. 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) 02:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator sought for the US National Archives WikiProject
Greetings, WikiProject US National Archives member!

We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.

Please see the full information at GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. 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) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tavi Gevinson
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tavi Gevinson. 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) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN
Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden. 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, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WER Welcome template
I took the new template out for a test run and ran into a brickwall. Please see User talk:MR v. MR from 2008. The welcome you see there is a cut-n-paste. "wad I do wrong". Thanks. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW...I mounted the new logo on my talk. Looks great!! ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment on the logo! I have not yet fixed the bug in the Template's documentation page with directions. For some reason the page itself Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome/doc is fine and has the correct link to the welcome page template. However...when it was automaticly transcluded onto the Template page (Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome) as directions for use...it is not listing the proper link. Which is why you see a red link (a red link means that the link itself exists to a page that has not been created yet). The reason for this confusion is actually kind of simple. Wikipedia does not allow automated signing/signature on Wiki pages. This is due to a number of code recognition reasons. The template itself will show on the article or talkpage when the template is linked using the – brackets but does not tranclude the text into the editing box. When using the mark-up code all the text from the template is shown in the editing box...and the tildes (as precoded for automated signing) work and sign the username of the person placing the template. I will endeavor to fix this problem today. Just remeber if you are using a template with tildes pre-coded YOU MUST USE the subst: coding. Sorry for any confusion. Hope this more advanced lesson has not been to off putting for MR v. MR from 2008, but it is a valuable lesson nonetheless. Happy Editing and if you have any questions be sure to ask on my talk page!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Template is AOK. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the changes esp. the icon...```Buster Seven   Talk  18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Beatles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Beatles. 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) 07:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Romney/Ryan reference
The reference I provided verifies not only the fact that Paul Ryan was picked (the undisputed part you refer to), but when the pick was made (date) and from where the congressman hails (Wisconsin). These are not facts readily known by everyone; therefore, a reference is absolutely necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When one absolutely needs a reference is not as cut and dry as you may think. Yes, the other facts can be referenced for conveniance, but are, again, undisputed facts that need not be referenced in a short statement such as was made. The only concern is that, perhaps, you were making some strong claims about procedure that are not completely accurate. Not ever staement or claim made on Wikipedia needs a reference. Saying Ryan was Romney's pick is unlikely to be disputed and the other details are referenced on Ryan's page in full detail. As I said, the short claim did not have to be referenced but it was good of you to do so. There is nothing wrong with that. But I don't think anyone need be warned about making claims without references over this. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what you say is basically refuted by WP:WHYCITE. There's really no excuse for failing to cite a reference, especially on a BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is is not refuted. It is supported sir.

and citing sources plainly states

So, no it really need not be referenced as the claim alone. This is a peice of information that is unlikely to be disputed on its own. I only make this point as to be sure and let you understand that you need not warn someone when you add a reference for this type of information. They were not wrong and niether are you, but you may be pushing away a good editor with inaccurate policy statements. Thanks, keep up the good work sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, my reading of WP:WHYCITE differs from yours. I read it as basically "if in doubt, provide a reference" and definitely provide one if it's a BLP. The reference is there for potentially disputable information, like the date of the announcement. Secondly, I didn't warn anyone for anything. Not sure what you are on about there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was a little brisk. =) and you state that it must have a reference and clearly it does not require one for the simple, short and obvious claim. We are reading the same thing, however you are emphasizing one part and simply not recognizing what I am pointing out to you. That is OK. I am not trying to change you...just remind you that there are many claims (even in biographies of living persons) which do not require a reference. The main point is that exapnsion of this section is likely and there will be addtional information that will require references, but the claim alone does not.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. There are three claims here:
 * Paul Ryan is VP pick.
 * Paul Ryan is a Representative from Wisconsin.
 * The Romney campaign made the announcement on August 11, 2012.
 * Bear in mind that my original edit and reference stated that the Ryan announcement came in the late hours of August 10. That claim was challenged, so it was clear a citation was needed. And my "brisk" edit summary was no more brisk than the previous edit summary that removed my original citation. And I think your assertion that "even BLPs" don't need citations for some material is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is no more a slope than any other obvious claim. Sorry, but none of those, with possibly the date, would require a reference on the article used. Your disputing the claims is not for accuracy but for the reference alone. That is not really disputing the claim but your perception of policy and guideline. Again....not every single claim being made about a living person requires a reference especialy when worded in such a generic way. I doubt it would even require a reference to claim a Congressman is a representative of a state, perhaps if the claim where more speific, yes. But saying he is a congressman from Wisconsin is not likely to be disputed either.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree. In all my years of editing Wikipedia, with over 19,000 edits, this is the first time I've encountered a situation where editors think it is better not to have a reference for something. This is especially incredible given that we are talking about an article about a candidate for POTUS, where it is likely that almost everything will be challenged. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have to disagree. If you have 19,000 edits I am sure you realise that we are both correct in our interpretations as written, however my point is not that "not" referencing is better (that was an obvious, unnecessary leap), only that you need not state that referencing is required for every claim on a BLP whether he is a VP or just a simple politician. The standard is the same for all. Some information is undisputed fact and need not be referenced...and referencing the obvious is not neccesarily going to be challenged either, just that this information alone probably would not require a source.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. 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) 07:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful
You just deleted a bunch of edits with one stroke. ???? 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, the ones where you began reverting wholesale without realising most of the stuff you were returning was in discsussion on the talk page. Please remember that what you return another may not agree with and consensus determines content.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's have a nice cup of tea
When you have time, perhaps we should both take a few deep breaths and have a nice cup of WP:TEA. We have gotten off to a very bad start, and as one experienced editor to another, there is really no reason for it. Upon reviewing our comments, we actually agree on more than we disagree, except apparently when it comes to politics. I don't do politics. I make a point to stay away from it. My *only* involvement was vandalism correction, and then curiosity as the article exploded, and then trying to pick up the pieces. I don't want you as an antagonist, regardless of what our perceived political leanings may or may not be. I have learned through bitter experience, not to engage in the behavior now running rampant on the Paul Ryan talk page, which is why I haven't touched it lately. It started out all tea and dumplings and then went to hell in the proverbial handbasket within, what seemed like, 2 minutes. I'm not an admin, by choice. I don't get paid by Wikipedia. And I don't report to any supervisors. My voice is equal to all other voices in this community, unless I am visibly demonstrated wrong on one particular edit. If you view my talk page archives, you should see that I have learned to admit when I am wrong. My focus is adding content, and copy editing, and *obvious* vandalism reversal, or *obvious* NPOV-pushing, and even then, I normally sit back and wait for an admin, after a day of knocking my head against the wall. I did my time on the boards, learning the ropes, just as you have. If you would like to discuss this further, you are welcome to do it here or on my talk page. Cheers.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, you are doing a great job. I meant that. I have a great interest in politcal figure biographies and some events, but mostly its the BLP interest. Lately, with the advent of a number of situations that arose at the OWS article, I came to understand that part of the propblem many editors encounter is a back and forth that becomes discouraging due to disagreement. I am very much interested in forthing articles and editor interaction in a peaceful, if not fully calm way. I fee editors should try to discuss and disagree while still encouraging both, the interaction and further editing. Your recent situation is not unfamiliar to me as a similar situation occured recently with me over my edits to the BRD essay. A bold chnage to an article may be one thing, but a percieved bold attempt to change long standing consenus is very contentious and causes great alarm. However, you are correct and Huff is changing. I just strongly feel that we need a full, community wide discussion (possibly on Village Pump) to discuss the validity of such a consensus, if this should be loosened up in some manner and bring forward some show of how the site has improved in ways that effect the objections editors have made over the years.


 * So, if I was harsher than you thought was needed i can apologise for that. I am enthusiastic in my endeavors and that can easily be mistaken for just being a pain in the ass. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You were harsh, and from a position a few steps back, you might need some distance as well. No offense intended. I appreciate your words of encouragement, and your explanation. It took me a while to formulate my response on the noticeboard, as most of it was typed earlier today, although I posted it in between these comments being posted. I hope you will continue to be as charitable after you read it. No offense, but as they might have said in "Kill Bill", you had it coming.


 * I do appreciate the work you do, and spent some significant amount of time reviewing a large chunk of your edit contributions, for obvious reasons. So when I say that, it isn't empty talk. I believe you are sincere, and a valuable asset to this community because of the content you contribute, and the passion with which you bring to discussions. I also believe, no rancor at all intended, that you may have fallen into the very trap you joined the retention program to avoid, and may have been dragged into the mud more than a few times over the last few days. I am really not meaning any disrespect, and I am just as guilty of falling into the trap. Luckily, my main interest was another article, where we are being civil, and that article reminded me why I had joined Wikipedia in the first place. Perhaps this might serve as inspiration for a new approach to the Paul Ryan article. That talk page may end up serving as a resume, for good or ill, for more than a few editors... for some time, due to the press coverage. Also, as I don't normally devote work-like hours to Wikipedia these days, you will have to forgive any time lags in the various posts, as I am not operating at light speed again yet, after my hiatus. Now that I have expressed my concerns, and you have, the rest of our interactions ought to be a breeze, even if we disagree. Cheers.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I encourage you to interact with editors...just not me any further. Should you have any questions or concerns I can direct you to an Administrator who you may address any concerns you have. But any further contact on this talkpage should stop. Your rant on the notice board concerns me and I feel we should not interact for at least some time. Just the fact that you can claim someone has something coming is just outright threatening and I really think you ought not use any further analogies from film. It didn't help. I will no longer mention you at the reliable sources notice board for any reason or in any way. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)



If it is your wish, this will be our final interaction. However, I am offering you the opportunity to reverse a potentially hasty decision, should that be your wish. That noticeboard is going to be there for a long time, and as you have pointed out, will get referred back to, perhaps forever. Do you really want to leave so many personal details out there like that? It only takes a few searches to put things together for people. If you decide to delete the comments as too personal for the general public, I will delete my refutation to that part of it. I have not, nor would ever, threaten you. This was not the outcome I had hoped, and I am sorry you misinterpreted a logical statement about use of the word "sir" in anonymous environments as anything other than what it was. We have more in common than you realize. For your discomfort, I am truly sorry. You don't have to reply, and can delete this or not, as is your wish. I will observe the board, and act accordingly. Truly, best regards.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My being gay is on a userbox (although I haven't re-added them from my last update). My reference to Oliver...as you can see by this image is not a hidden subject. My real name is linked in a number of places in the history of a number of pages and is in fact still listed in some places on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. It is a matter of public record in a number of places that link my real name and general location but not address, nothing many editors don't already choose to disclose directly on their userpage. These assumptions could easily be seen different than a friendly warning. A message on your own talk page would likely have been seen by the way. Also, I am not saying leave me alone and I will leave you alone. I am saying the discussion has degenerated beyond what I think either of us should be comfortable with. Its about the edits, not the editor. I think we should simply go to our respective corners for the time being as our interaction is not doing either of us any good. Better to step away from each other then to step away from the articles or notice board subjects. I just do not use my real name in discussion or on my takpage or userpage. Hey...if ya wanna know who I am, it isn't that hard because I don't really hide the fact, I just don't discuss those details in open conversation on Wikipedia. Its not a social networking site.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)