User talk:Mark Miller/Archive 6

Barnstar Designer needed
Some background. I copied this from DB's page for your update: "This editor is a fine example of someone that works with new editors in a special, nurturing way. It is really refreshing to see. I will work toward creating a dialogue with him and hopefully he will be willing to share some of his wisdom @ WP:WER. I'm sure a word or two of support from you will make his day. ```Buster Seven  Talk  13:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Just a thought as I was walking out the door.....WE, as a whole, spend SOOOOOO much time with problem edits and editors and the situations and discussions surrounding them that go on fdor days and weeks. So much wasted effort...and especially wasted time. This User, Gfan, is doing it right. He is teaching the new breed. Its the challenge of seeing an example of how it could be. Buster Seven   Talk.
 * Excellent find! I will catch up with him in a bit.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what, we need a Barnstar for WEP, in mainspace. A star with the WP:WEP logo over it, standard template, "The Editor Retention Barnstar", for helping making Wikipedia a more enjoyable place for all editors.  That would cover a great many situations, including this.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My barnstar construction abilities are limited to "sidewalk Foreman''> I'll run it past User:Amadscientist and see what he comes up with. ```Buster Seven  Talk  15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See User talk:Gtwfan52. It looks like User:DB already has a barnstar. ```Buster Seven  Talk  16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to catch up with this editor as well and look at his style.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)"

Paul Ryan
Please engage in the discussion. I tried, but you seem uninterested. Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, uhm I believe my history at the talkpage disproves that claim...and I made the original thread to discuss it, but you are not giving any reason to keep the innaccurate and misleading lede.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD and please offer an argument to support the version you edited. Do this at Talk:Paul_Ryan Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am...now you please do the same. Don't make it out as if I am not cooperating or discussing on the talkpage. I understand your concerns and i am disussing, but be aware you must do the same and show specifics. You made a good point about an addition since my contribution and I agreed it seems oddly POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan
not a problem, i don't think your revert reverted my edit? Tom B (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats
There was no legal threat, nothing close to it in the diff you provided. How you think that me stating a country can declare its coat of arms by law means I'm going to sue anyone? How about you calm down, there. Bellae artes (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) How about you read the post there. It was uncomfortably close and I stated that on the face of it there was no borderline threat, I also consulted a admin on whether they thought it was just an opinion which they agreed it was, however I had already come to that conclusion and made my post explaining that you should use caution.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology and clarification
Hi. I'm sorry I did not ping you re the request to close the GAR at Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 (an apology I have repeated there). As I've indicated, i think closing it as kept is the right thing to do, and remaining issues are readily handled at talk (as you are). But I certainly didn't mean to imply any bad faith, and through failing to leave a message at your talk, that was evidently the impression i left. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no...it was more that, when asked why you speedy closed you made speculative accusations not based on any fact any reasonable editor would have easily seen. All that speculation and talk of FAR was really out of line with what I had been doing and if you look on the history of the Mitt Romney article you will even see me state clearly in summary that the image was fine for GA use and scope when I had determined it did not have any issues of copyright. I believe your closing of that GAR was innapropriate, ill concieved and badly defended. Thanks for responding here though. I do appreciate that.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's Article for Improvement
Thank you very much for joining the project and welcome aboard! As you probably noticed, we are having difficulty getting this undertaking off the ground, and we need all the help we can get! AutomaticStrikeout 19:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For your information...
Thanks to Ryan Vesey we have our first nomination in the WP:TAFI project, so I'm notifying all the project members. AutomaticStrikeout 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in June 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in June 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) 04:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
There is a discussion about New Editor Welcomes. I mentioned WP:WER Welcome but not sure if I did it the justice it deserved. Thanks. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Just so you know in case you missed it, see User talk:Itemirus and a discussion about "Triage". Sounds interesting but I don't fully comprehend. I do see potential to incorporate WP:WER with any project still in production. Thanks. Hope you don't mind. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan review
If we could choose reviewers, I would choose you, but I don't think you meet the requirements for an uninvolved reviewer and I think you should step down. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Regarding this edit, Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1 certainly is a talk page. Please group your comments together on talk pages. —Eustress talk 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit my comments or change the time stamps or whatever it was that caused times ti end up changing and I request you look over that discussion on the lede as I was not the "lone voice" to expand. I edited to make the claim match the reference and all that was reverted and another editor changed it to a shortened version that I defended.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And a review page is set up by the reviewer and grouping of discussion is an editorial choice you don't get to decide for others.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Eustress talk 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Amadscientist. I've commented at the ANI listing. I don't suppose you'll like my comments there, but i want to reinforce that I think you're making constructive contributions, I just think you've misread community expectations on GAN/GAR guidelines in your dealings with these two articles (Romney and Ryan). I'm not sure why: you have a long editing record, including on GA-related stuff. Anyway, FWIW I would let someone else take care of the Paul Ryan GAN and just keep on making the constructive contributions that you were making previously, on content and talk. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting. I argued my case against speedy closing. I believe you made mistakes as well, and while I questioned your reasoning I didn't question the closing. I stated my peice and let it go. It was a speedy and out of my hands. I believed taking the community reassesment route was prefered to an individual on on such a contentious article. I was not happy with you closing, but didn't claim you had crossed a line, or endagered the intergrity of the GANs. I don't agree with your assesment on AN/I but it your assemsnt to make, but am unclear on what your concerns are.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, you may not believe that you have edited the article significantly. But many other people do, and that is going to taint your review in their eyes, no matter what the verdict is. Is this something that you want? So it would be easier on everyone, including yourself, would you mind stepping back from the GAN review? Thanks. --Rschen7754 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not debating that. Just no one has really demonstrated that. All this talk of edit counting seems like a misreading of policy. Do my actual contributions to the article constitute a "significant" contributon. There are many editors who do feel I should step aside and withdraw from the review. However, I think the very spirit of GA is intact. We don't vote reviewers out based on just opinion and we don't start a process and then ask that the process be shortened because it seems obvious to you. I see no reason to do anything yet. There are going to be support and oppose on these issues. I think it only fair now to wait a bit to at least see what others have to say for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think consensus is clear. Please withdraw from the review and let someone who is uninvolved lead.  Keep in mind, you are still eligible to participate in the review.  Are you aware of this? Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, thank you, I am. I know anyone may actually participate and I believe it even says something about independent reviews can be included within the review page, but the fail or pass is the reviewer decision.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will you withdraw? Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ANI has no consensus. From what I see it has basicly been seen as a GAN talkpage issue unless someone wishes to RFCUC. Ask for closing on the talkpage and determination if they feel there has been sufficient time to weigh consensus and I ask that in some manner before close someone actually give some effort to show how my contributions, not edit count, but contributions are too significant to review. Even one edit can be too significant and many can be very insignificant. This is a very serious issue regardless and I feel I, as the editor being "committeed" out of review by "vote" or "consensus" against my perception of guidelines, at least deserves to have it made clear where the threshold is or was that was crossed with such ambiguous language in place. Thank you Viriditas.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've misread the ANI. There's no consensus for a topic ban.  There is, however, consensus for your removal from the GAN.  Do you understand?  If you don't understand that this consensus is clear from reading the thread, then I will probably support a RFC/U.  It isn't at all clear what you are trying to achieve by forcing yourself on the Paul Ryan GAN, but your judgement is extremely poor in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have misread the AN/I? I don't think so. It is still open. You feel that my waiting for a closing and determination is cause for a request for comment/user conduct? You feel that I must submit to the consensus as it stands now, or need to understand that consenus is now clear and I must act now? I respectfully decline at the moment. I don't think Wikipedia has lost all process.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You misread the ANI. There is a strong consensus for you to step away from the GAN now.  You ignore it at your peril. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I will count on the closing decision of the administrators. You seem to have missed the portion where it was clear that AN/I is not the place to make a conclusion to remove an editor from a GA review. Anyone ignoring consensus does so at their peril on Wikipedia. Consensus is a major part of collaboration and I do not ignore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the right place when you put your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la I can't hear you!. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not here to help, are you?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you helping?  Seriously, have you even bothered to think this through?  1) Paul Ryan is running for one of the most important positions in the USA.  It goes beyond saying that we need an uninvolved editor to review this article.  That means, not you.  2) By contesting this, you are opening a can of worms for other involved editors to copy your behavior.  Please think about the repercussions of your behavior rather than only about yourself. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are asking me to step aside without a fully developed consensus or closing with an unambiguous determination? Please think of the editors that are not reviewing GA and the backlog. This may well be a positive thing to escalate to avoid any further escalation in the future. I am not trying to make a point. I honestly feel my contribuions are not so significant as to exclude me from GA review. I am not taking a blind eye or a deaf ear to the situation. But, there is also a process in which we work. I am not looking to be forced into anything. But I also have the reasonable expectation to dispute resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, step aside. What you think is completely at odds with what most people think.  That should give you a bit of a hint. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You see integrity in asking me to step aside before an outcome is determined? How does that help this situation? Thank you for your input. I will think about what you have stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hey there Amadscientist, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll take the Mixed Breed dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the mixed-breed dogs issue. If you need further info on the information under scrutiny (pariah dogs) the same info can also be found on the Dog page, the pariah dog page, the Indian pariah dog page, and the free-ranging dog page. - Dave David Ross19 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney
Your a cock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.31.238 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Enver Čolaković
Hello! I noticed that you have closed the Enver Čolaković DRN case per lack of discussion. I would like to point out that there was a prior discussion at User talk:Wüstenfuchs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a content dispute or a personal dispute? If this is a content dispute the discussion should go on the talkpage of the article where all editors can weigh in. This is a disagreement between two editors. A discussion is supposed to be "extensively" held before coming to DR/N and is not all extensive.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarification! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

-- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan GA nomination
Hey, you may want to see the suggestions I have made at the review page.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am loving this newsletter!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UK Independence Party
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. 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, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan (film) response
The case was closed while I was answering you, but I would still appreciate your taking a look at it anyway.


 * Amadscientist, I admit that I may have brought the problem to the wrong forum - if so, I apologise. This is the first time I have been involved in anything like this, and it's by no means easy to figure out where to take problems. In the course of this, I happened to stumble across The Olive Branch, and I gather that I'm by no means alone in that.
 * I'm not sure what case you think I didn't prove. I wasn’t trying to prove what I believe, which is that the line is "I was perfect". I was trying to prove that there is sufficient doubt as to which is correct, “I was perfect” or “It was perfect” for us to need to either acknowledge the fact, or refrain from committing. Prior to the new input from the subtitles, I believe I did prove that.
 * As Bbb23 points out in her/his introductory statement, there simply can not be authoritative sources for film plot synopses, so in the final analysis it comes down to one person’s perception as opposed to another’s. As Bbb23 also points out, all film synopses are original research, and a blind eye is being turned to that. So I hear “I”, you hear “it” and both of us are committing original research. Previous editors have heard “I” and have tried to edit to that effect, others have heard “it” and have reverted them. Hearing that line, people don’t agree (and edit on the basis of original research).
 * My sampling of real world viewers, original research again but statistically reasonably sound, turned up a good 80% who heard the line as “I was perfect”, plenty to cast valid doubt as to whether “It was perfect” is correct.
 * SubSeven’s script is not an authoritative document. It’s a draft that was subsequently amended at least six times: it says so right on it. And changes were made. In those very last seconds of the film, for example, there’s a huge difference between the stage direction “fade to black”, and what actually appears in the film, where Nina is enveloped by white light before the fade to black. That’s the difference between suggesting that it was all a delusion, or suggesting that she dies. If that big a change was made to the draft, the last line could equally well have been changed.
 * Subtitles aren’t really that much better. We all know how wrong they can be. So there was doubt and there still is. However, subtitles are just sufficient backing for “It” that I’m letting it drop (not going to RfC, that was before SGCM’s subtitles suggestion: coming here achieved that, so it wasn’t time wasted).
 * However, if I’ve convinced you that the doubt is in fact irreducible . . . (Joke, but take it as a true word spoken in jest if you like).
 * Once more, sorry if this wasn’t the appropriate place to come. Best,

Awien (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are always welcome to post on my talkpage as long as you remain civil and you have. Bbb23 is acually incorrect. There are guidelines for plot summeries and they do require primary and secondary sourcing per guidelines and MOS for project film, but has never been applied as far as I know. The major point of the entire situation was that you tried to change long standing consensus through DR/N when you were actually the only one disputing the information. You provided no secondary sources and just your opinion and statistics that I am not sure could be used. When a single person goes against three opposing views, that is not exactly a dispute. Its just not accepting consensus. Originaly I had intended to close the DR/N as having not established a true dispute but this is not something that would have pleased you for having turned to us for help, but remember DR/N may beused at any time, however it is never a good idea to state you intend to carry on after a resolution. I am not entirely pleased that the discussion was closed in that manner, but respect the choices of the other volunteers. It isn't a waste of time as long as you honor what was decided at the noticeboard! Thanks for commenting here!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy See coat of arms on Commons
You might be interested in this discussion. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it perhaps time to make File:Holysee-arms.svg show once more the arms of the Holy See? Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Holysee-arms.svg--Amadscientist (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that is what the image represents, not just an emblem. I would agree with that, if you mean Coat or Arms.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What the image represents at present is the coat of arms of Vatican City State, not that of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you feel is needed to make this the COA of the Holy See?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is needed is to return to the image as it was before Fry changed it twice. Esoglou (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the version you wish to revert to? --Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the version with the gold key in bend, the version indicated in Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City (and of course in the cited sources) as the Holy See's arms, in contrast to the version with the silver key in bend indicated in the same article as the coat of arms of Vatican City State. If possible, I would prefer not to do the restoring myself, so as not to be responsible for a Fry1989-Esoglou edit war that would almost certainly lead to Fry's indefinite blocking.  Esoglou (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the file and may run it through Inkscape to do some slight alterations on the cord (so that it resembles a cord) and will re-upload in the near future. I am seeing a few things that i will check back with you one before uploading for clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are we on the discussion as to whether the shield is on the COA of the "Holy See" as it appears that the COA of the Vatican State has it, but not the Holy See. How do you interpret the sources on this. The one source i used on the article states that Papl COA are different in that shields need not be used to be defined as a COA, and the Vatican website seems to show two different images. How do you feel about this?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the documentation of the Press Office of the Holy See, which up to now you have been rejecting in favour of what are surely far more reliable sources? The Italian version or the English?  The Italian version quite plainly does not say a coat of arms needs no shield.  The English version speaks of the "coat of arms" (singular) of the Holy See and Vatican City but thus just as certainly does not state that the emblem illustrated is a coat of arms distinct from the coat of arms (with of course an escutcheon) that it also illustrates.  Fry who once held that the Holy See's emblem/coat of arms (he considered the two terms equivalent) has no shield has now been accepting that it does have a shield, as was maintained by his adversary Bellae artes, who agreed with him only on the position of the gold key.  What I thought you were considering to be the truly reliable sources (Galbreath and Heim in particular) envision coats of arms only as depicted on an escutcheon, and in the case of the Holy See a red one ("gules"), not as mere loose emblems.  (This is a reply to what you put on my talk page.  I think it would be better to keep the conversation on one page only.  Tomorrow I will look here for any further comments by you.)  Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to figure out where the discussion is and from what sources (aside from the Vatican Website-which is extremly hard to figure out what they are claiming) is the source for the gold key's placement.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have completely forgotten the very active part you took in the discussion, when you cast aside the "source" whose meaning you have now (again) characterized as extremely hard to figure out. Please read your own interventions on Talk:Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City and your removal from the article of the claim that the Holy See has only an escutcheon-less emblem and no true coat of arms.  As for the reliable sources that clearly state that the Holy See has a coat of arms (not just an emblem) with the gold key in bend, please read again the first paragraph of the section of the article on the coat of arms of the Holy See.  It was you yourself who discovered at least one of those sources (Galbreath).  The same sources were indicated in the descriptions of some files until you deleted the references to them here and here.  Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I may just create a completely new image (with the gold key as depicted in the version you are asking to revert to). I'm that bored right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Please, let things settle down before complicating them further.
 * Since you and FleetCommand, while both saying the image ought to be restored to its pre-Fry state, have not done so, I must do the restoration myself. Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on uploading over the existing file. That would just be throwing rocks at the situation. I meant that I am working on my own version of the COA as some descriptive parts are missing and I don't want to begin new drama over the existing file. As for your revert, that is up to you. I take things a lot slower so that I am up to date on the discussion on both sides. It looks as if Fry is just going by a visual interpretation as seen on the Vatican website and seeing this as an absolute, wihout regard to the fact that it may have been purposely used incorrectly or mistakenly used.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed about a new WER Welcome
I like the look and feel of the New Editor Help Page mentioned above in the Help Project Newsletter ("Help getting started"). I copy and pasted a copy to User talk:Buster7/WER Welcome and edited out the top. I would like to start using it (to welcome new editors) right away. But, I"m not sure if that would be OK with User:the wub. I thought I would run it past you before I asked 'the wub'. What do you think; is it still on the drawing board? With the recent conversations at WER:talk regarding our Welcome I would prefer using the MOST updated Welcome possible. Maybe you could make a new WER/Welcome Template? Thanks for your thoughts. ```Buster Seven   Talk  07:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at that discussion it is clear that the current Welcom Template may seem to "authoritive" and simply be templating new users in a manner that makes them feel as if they already did something wrong or just get turned off by the large chunk of text that appears on their page. Yes, it is always on the drawing board. Should you use an existing page to adapt for use, just be sure and add the copied template to show attribution to the original authors of the template you use! Sounds like the project is getting a lot of good input!--Amadscientist (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean Karaites DRN
I'm intending to close the filing at the 24 hour mark from the original filing as it's primarily a conduct issue (that has made it's way through AN/I already). I ask that you not do anything with the filing until then. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No content dispute to be found. This is clearly a behavior/conduct issue. No further action or comments will be made. Thank you for this notification.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Commendation for Civility
I saw the discussion over here and wanted to commend you on your civility in handling the situation. And based on a comment above, you are apparently pretty good at keeping your head - it takes a pretty desperately ineffectual troll to vandalize someone's talk page - keep up the good work and thank you. --Noha307 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Yes, I get the occasional troll dropping things off, but it is replies like this that help keep my head up to keep working through!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Image
Please explain what is wrong with the Fair Use rationale for that image. I want that image to be 100% legitimate. Note that the image I used was from the 2-minute clip broadcast on Egyptian TV, as uploaded to YouTube by what I believe to be the TV channel itself (at least, the other content from that account seems to be consistently from that channel, and it has "TV" in the name, but then again, the site itself is in Arabic).

Note that the pixelation was done BY THE EGYPTIAN TV STATION, not by me, and it was most peculiar to me, with a simplistic outsider's information about Muslim propriety, that they pixelized a woman because her hair was showing but displayed someone playing "Muhammad". Wnt (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can continue the discussion on the talkpage. I am making no accusation of the uploader just that we don't censor...so why use an image that pixilates one actor but not all or none.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims image
I didn't add any screencap. I think you've confused me with a different editor. fraggle (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dooh! You are correct. I confused your contribution from the editor just before you. My apologies! I think I am getting tired.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I'm curious, why did you start the merge discussion about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? To me, it seems like a great waste of time and energy. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To establish a consensus one way or another. I do not see community collaboration as a waste of time.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a waste of time if it was started with the idea that it would not succeed. My question is, why is there a merge discussion in the first place?  I'm not in a position to support or oppose it, I'm just curious why it was initiated. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have asked a question and I have answered it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific concern not being addressed here and would like to ask more specific questions, I do not object.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you initiate the merge discussion? Was this a recommended outcome of the AfD? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I initiated the merge proposal in order to establish a consensus one way or another. Yes, this was the recommended outcome of the AFD:


 * " The result was keep. Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus for deletion. This is without prejudice to continuing to discuss a possible merger on the article talk page.  Sandstein   12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC) "--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I was asking. It's like pulling teeth to get an answer from you, you know. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny...I was thinking it was like pulling teeth to get you to ask a specific question. Just jumping on editors and assuming bad faith is a little irritating Sir. Aloha.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again with this? Check my very first specific request for information: "I'm curious, why did you start the merge discussion about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?" You can't get any more specific than that. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And AGAIN I answered your question. Just because it was not the answer you wanted (whatever it IS you wanted..I have no clue) does not mean it was NOT specific. Clearly you are looking for trouble sir and attempting to be a pain in the rear. Now stop. You have overstayed your welcome.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So yeah
I'm tired of trying your polite approach since no-one fucking pays attention anyways. "See also" is back and everyone just keeps warring it in. You go ahead and try your reasoning. I don't give a shit anymore. Sorry. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are other ways to deal with the issue. One, just wait 24 hours or more. The article will be there. Also keep adding your input or you give the article away to the bigots using it to create more violence and allow the Rightwing Christian extremist an ability to take over the encylopedia. We all have a right to edit...but not advocate our beliefs. Don't dispair...they is alwasy tomorrow...and the next day, and the next day, and the next day....and on. Commitmnet to Wikipedia is not something that one can really give up on to quickly. Having patience is more than a virtue here. Try joining WP:WER and discussing your concerns as I really don't want you to give up so easily. It can effect your desire to edit here and that would be Wikipedia's loss!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been here for years, so this isn't giving up on wikipedia in general. I just have the feeling that the pasts months have been extreme. It might be because there's an election in the U.S. and now this Arab stuff and whatnot, or maybe it's just my impression. I do have the feeling that the number of nutcases is growing, to the extent that it takes a Yoga-Zeng-master to stay focused. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I take Wiki breaks often. One seems just around the corner i think. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)