User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 12

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens
Heyo Opabinia regalis, Merry Christmas and a late congratulations for the ArbCom (I did oppose your RfA but you were my first choice to be on the committee - one of the few times when I was glad to be wrong). Anyways, I saw this while patrolling NewPages and redirected it to the List of infectious diseases. I later noticed that you had initiated this AfD and now I am not entirely sure if redirecting it was the correct move. Would appreciate your input. Best,  Ya  sh  !   13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of those things; a little opposition is good :) IIRC the article at this title was originally a mess of OR, and it looks like it was just recently recreated with different (and not very useful) content. It's not the most likely search term, but I think a redirect is fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bannedmeansbanned
Hello Regarding the the TfD on this a while ago; I have opened a discussion here if you wish to comment. BTW I tried that ping thing on my talk page; did it work? All the best, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Will take a look (ping worked, by the way :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost Arbitration interview request
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to, in whichever format you prefer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1.	First off, congrats on becoming an Arbitrator.
 * Thanks!

2.	Why did you want to run for a seat in the Committee?
 * At first I thought it was a totally daft idea. I was a bit of an outlier as a candidate, having had a long period of inactivity on Wikipedia before returning just short of a year ago. (Unless I get a windfall of free time this week, I expect I'll take office with under 10k live edits.) After waffling a bit early in the nomination process, I made the decision to run after I noticed 10+ candidates on the list and no women. Fortunately, I wasn't the only woman for very long at all, and I'm very happy to see four women on the 2016 committee! To be honest I think the basic motivation behind deciding to run is the same as watching someone fiddle with a gadget that isn't quite working right and instinctively saying "Oh! Let me try!" despite not actually having any clue about how the thing works either ;) 

3.	How did you feel about the election as a whole?
 * It would have been interesting to watch even if I hadn't been a candidate. The mass messaging of all >100k eligible voters inspired a lot of interest in the voting dynamics and how the change in the composition of the electorate would affect the results. Being kind of a data nerd, I did some analysis of voter characteristics while votes were coming in and while we waited for the final results. (If you're curious, see here for the summary or here for the [very long] real-time talk page thread about mass messaging.) 

4.	What are your thoughts on the outcomes to cases from the previous year (e.g: GamerGate, Lightbreather, Arbitration Enforcement 1/2)? Did you think they were handled the best that they could have? Why?
 * I talked a bit about this in my candidate questions (see especially this one and this one) and I believe I commented in all of those cases except Gamergate - which occurred while I was not active on Wikipedia, and which was reported widely enough in the outside media that it partly explains why I returned. So I'm not sure that yet more rehashing of this series of cases from me would be of much interest to anyone :) At this point, I think we're all aware that matters broadly related to the gender gap are complex and controversial and are likely to give rise to additional cases over the next two years. 

5.	Now that you are part of the Committee, how do you feel about this new position?
 * It's weird. I think I'm The Man now.

6.	What would you say would be the challenges of this position? What do you plan to accomplish from this?
 * Well, we are supposed to provide solutions to otherwise intractable community problems; what could be so challenging about that? ;) I don't know if I can claim specific goals or intended accomplishments, since arbcom is structured to be responsive to issues arising from the community rather than to provide leadership on its own initiative. Certainly one area I hope to see further improvement in is handling of harassment cases, particularly where there is an identity/bias element.

7.	Would there a chance to bring back the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in the future?
 * Frankly, I was glad to see it go. I think any task that can reasonably be done at the community level should be. But this is a matter we can revisit if it becomes clear that the new system isn't working well. It's important that we offer an appeal mechanism, and that we make reasonable decisions on those appeals in a timely manner, and we should be pragmatic about how we organize the appeals bureaucracy to make that happen. 

8.	Any additional comments?
 * Just want to thank the outgoing arbs for all their work in an unusually difficult year.

GamerPro64 03:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Replies in italics above. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Opabinia regalis!


Happy New Year! Opabinia regalis, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Opabinia regalis!


Happy New Year! Opabinia regalis, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

2016 year of the reader and peace
Thank you for inspiration and the kitten, and for staying! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I expect even moar support in a year with you on arbcom ;) - ring the peace bell often! - Look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda, slightly late happy new year! I always enjoy your music articles despite persistent ignorance of the topic :) Already seeing the value of that peace bell... Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the cantata is also late, shown right now ;) - I switched above from my small translation to the FA by my favourite arb, missed. You will remember his line from my questions: "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better." Nice infobox on Falstaff, isn't it? Such a thing was considered disruptive in 2013. We improved, ever so slowly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you ! I could always use some coffee :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:EDITCOUNTITIS alert
I went and wasted my 10,000th edit on an article. How silly of me. So this one's 10,006 :) But I do wish I knew why the MediaWiki edit count - which supposedly includes deleted edits - says 10,005, Xtools live edits is 9811, and live+deleted is 10,707. Hrmph. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * X-tools is no longer being supported by its authors/creators. Due to internal squabbles between them and one of their number retired and another being banned and another claiming the have no time due to college (but now working for the WMF!) they are all refusing to have anything to do with it. I assume other Wikipedias also have an edit counter of sorts, so IMO, (most reluctatly) this is one area where the Foundation should step in and spend some of their $20m surplus getting the edit counters fixed. hey have never worked properly (lie so many tools) since the Foundation wrested the ToolSerer from de.Wiki control.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably a difference in defining deleted edits - maybe something to do with counting pages that have been deleted and then recreated. But I don't have time to check either :) If I were a college kid I'd take the paying job too. At least then when people complain I'd be making money listening to them! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey O, Xtools includes edits across all Wikimedia projects - 10,009 edits on enwiki + 438 on wikidata + 252 on commons and another 2 on meta in your case. With just 200 semi automated edits, quite an impressive editing history you got there! :) With all the respect that is due to you, for someone who mentions “veiled personal attacks” in every other sentence, your behaviour here and on the Xtools mailing list is disappointing to say the least. 81.96.222.144 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Derp, you're right. I didn't think about the obvious answer. (No comment on the mailing list, I haven't read it.) Thanks! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps user:81.96.222.144 would have the courtesy to log in from one of their accounts when commenting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I keep trying to remind myself to stop whingeing at developers. Learned a new word when someone used that term on my talk page. I'm logged in. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering who to thank for finally fixing it so that it says "Article" again, instead of some Chinese character. Since I noticed that fix, it seems to be behaving more reliably.
 * Though I wouldn't blame the responsible developer if they wanted to keep a low profile, as once it becomes known you're a competent developer, you might risk drawing excess attention....

I recall asking a similar question about inconsistent edit counts a couple of years ago at wikitech:Nova Resource Talk:Xtools. Seems a bit complicated. Now I see I'm getting credit for a lot of "proxy-edits" over at Wikidata, that I never directly made. Since I read the Signpost report about that project, I'm not sure what to make of it. And if someone "imports" my edits into another project, does that increase my edit count? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you move a page here, the Wikidata item is also changed, and those are probably the majority of your edits (without looking into it). Yes, import of your edits to another project will increase your edit count. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Strangeways Research Laboratory
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it...
....I actually wrote the procedure. You had no idea you were in the company of such exhausted wisdom. Did you? --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So it turns out you're an expert in blowing wind? No wonder you're so good at arbcom! Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm often told I'm full of hot air. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to claim "inspirator" status for this, and I want you to note its etymology. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dutch oven? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See, y'all mention dutch ovens and I just get hungry.... Part Time Velociraptor ( [raptor noises] ) 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at the early history if that link, which is now a redirect, you can note my expertise. Save mes some dinner Keilana --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Original title Dutch oven (fart chamber)? LOL. I assume dinner must be chili with beans. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Things that make you go hmmmm . . ..
Opabinia, I wonder why persons who had not edited for over a year were notified of the 2015 Arbcom elections: ? While I strongly support notifying active editors of the annual elections, I think sending such notices to inactive and retired users is a waste of resources, if not actually counter-productive in some cases. I think these questions need to be asked and answered -- with clearly defined answers well in advance of the 2016 elections, and such decisions should not be made arbitrarily or in secret. Merry New Year. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The short version is, it was a mistake. There was a proposal (at AN, IIRC) to notify all eligible editors who had edited in the three months before the election, but somewhere the 'three month' criterion got lost in the shuffle from idea to implementation, and notifications went out to all >100k eligible editors based on a list drawn up by the WMF. There was a lot of concern over this - and some of the feedback raised worries - but in the end there was clear evidence that the messages increased turnout, while only ~10% of the voters failed the 3-month criterion, and the biggest effect seemed to be an increase in neutral votes. A brief summary of the voter data ended up here, distilled from this very long talk page thread - which you actually started the very beginning of :) The place to work out whether and how to do this next year is probably at the pre-election RfC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the increase in voter participation is generally healthy for the project. It prevents relatively small clusters of editors from dominating the voting, and it's part of the educational process of drawing more of our peripheral participants deeper into our processes and better informing them of our policies and guidelines.  I also think the 90-day activity cut-off is a completely proper standard for notice -- the goal should not be to revive inactive or nearly so accounts for the sole purpose of voting.  Those are often the sort of voters who show up to vote because of a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality.  The ultimate goals should be a larger electorate and better-informed project participants.  Election notices for active editors serve both purposes.  And, as I postulated in earlier discussions, most of the newer and less experienced editors did not engage in "whacky" voting patterns; as evidenced by the increase in "neutral" votes, many of them simply voted for those candidates who they knew and with whom they had good experience, and skipped those of whom they had no personal knowledge.  That's a completely rational way to vote.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of those peripheral participants might not appreciate being drawn deeper into our dysfunction! ;) You're right, the results indicate most people voted sensibly, even if some of those who then came on-wiki to post about it raised some doubts. IIRC there was some concern about the idea of creating a set of users eligible to vote but not eligible for a notification, so the place to look for next year may be in setting an activity requirement for voter eligibility. (I assume whatever criteria get chosen have to be checkable by the securepoll interface, but otherwise are subject to change.) Might be a good idea to write some notes on this now if you have any thoughts for next year, otherwise the RfC will either be overlooked or get bogged down in whatever September 2016's wikipolitical slapfight of the moment turns out to be. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's calendar this for April or May. Having an RfC on point well in advance of the next elections is sensible.  And we should be able to draft something that lays out three or four workable options, let the argumentative types thrash it out, and then be done with it.  Part of it, of course, is giving them definite options on which to comment and vote, and avoid the usual open-ended chaos that some participants seem to thrive on.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The usual election RfC is in August-September I believe. (This year's got very little attention; I don't remember even noticing it at the time.) If you need any data, ping me, but I think the common practice is that sitting arbs keep their fingers out of the election pies :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, the notice criteria were even murkier than suggested. Here's a user who has not edited in 8 years that received notice of the 2015 Arbcom elections: .  I'm not sure there were any actual criteria at all.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was everyone who met the eligibility criteria (account registered before 28 Oct, 150 mainspace edits by 1 Nov). No recent activity criterion. Of course, the overwhelming majority of these >100k notices were ignored, and among those who voted, many had low edit counts but few were truly inactive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cats in zero gravity


Skip to the 3 minute mark. No need to thank me, everyone.
 * Folks, this is it. Early contender for Best Talk Page Post of 2016. Do what the IP says, talk page stalkers :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just seen this - it's wonderful! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether to say "cool" ... or "cruel"; but certainly interesting. — Ched : ?  12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fun to watch, but I sure do hope those cats got some top-notch catnip afterwards.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald E. Mickens
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey
You snooze, you lose. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.) --Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Impact
It's Mozart's birthday, DYK? Time to improve his Requiem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, what a clever idea for a prize. You know eventually I'm going to follow through and post cats and cookies on the arb pages somewhere :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to the cats. Even better: no arbitration needed ;) - What do think of the discussion on the Mozart talk? - The prize was made in memory of a great soul. If you look into "blushing" on my talk, that's the one who appears twice. I try to keep that spirit alive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent way to remember someone!
 * No arbitration needed sounds good. Maybe if we start bribing the parties with cookies? Free cookies if you agree to stop fighting! Like Drmies down in that other thread, I am steering clear of infobox discussions (unless maybe there are cookies involved). Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Infobox discussions are one thing, open. Silently doing away with one (which was there for years and served readers) is a different story. I try to ignore ignore ignore (remembering "someone"), but when vacation is over and mourning less becoming, I may remember why someone was desysopped and blocked himself: for protecting a page in a case of edit-war over an infobox (which you can't do once you have commented yourself). So far the list of damaged infoboxes for 2016 is empty. I wish it could stay that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up
So I know you're rather busy, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up on recent goings-on at TfD. I've had two different (non-admin) editors today revert my closures due to an incredibly strict interpretation of the NAC rules. I pointed them to the RfC and another discussion on the fact, and hopefully that will be the end of it, but... I don't know. Just felt I should let you know. Pinging to keep 'em in the loop. Primefac (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I seem to remember a couple of other recent conversations about this too. I haven't had time/energy/motivation for yet another RfC to ratify the results of the prior RfC (and I fear it'll upset the applecart asking people who don't know how the process works about how the process should work), but I suppose individually pointing objectors to the old RfC doesn't scale very well. Maybe we should just make you an admin and solve the problem that way instead ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've considered it, but after the colossal failure of the last one I thought I'd wait a while ;) As for the "opposition," I guess I'll stick with pointing them to the RfC for now (hopefully this is a one-time thing). Primefac (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RfA is stoooopid. (That may be one of the smarter things said about it.) If you want to draft an RfC don't let my sluggishness stop you, obviously I would help/support, but I have been short on useful wiki-time lately. And I still haven't read that long-ass Martinelli thread..., you like closing stuff, wanna do my homework for me? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I love you like a sister, but no way. Ping Sandstein--let him take care of it. Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dammit! Sandstein's already had a crack at this and closed the DRV. I have no time till next week to be productive use Wikipedia to procrastinate on my drop-dead must-be-done-Feb-1 work project, so I'm going to stick it on ANRFC for now and I'll look next week if it's still there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , false alarm--the one I complained about is already done. I'm so frustrated at work that I'm logging extra hours on-wiki. I discovered yesterday that I missed a deadline--in September. Seems like a good occasion to play the entire Nick Cave catalog. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , oh no, missing deadlines is never good. :( False false alarm. Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3 isn't done yet, so you have another reason to log more hours on-wiki. :) Cunard (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Noticing in January that you missed a deadline in September? Sounds like something I would do. I'm about ready to quit my job and become a hobo, except that it's probably hard to find wifi that way. That discussion is a navbox, not an infobox, by the way; totally different animal ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, my dad has been kind of like a hobo for the last five years. But without the train. He seems to find good wifi. It's good work if you can get it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lyndon Emsley
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You rock
. You even managed to avoid the ridiculous "admonished" word. And you focused on, you know, the most important part. Please draft all subsequent motions and decisions for the next 2 years. <--(This isn't a joke.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, what's the salary and do I get a secretary? ....oh. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * re the wording: "unwise" change to "questionable" (just a thought) — Ched : ?  02:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed now, I think. Note to self: Strunk and White were right; it's the adjectives that get you in trouble. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That new proposed motion is an improvement, but I'll still nitpick. It currently says the blocks were made "without sufficiently clear communication", and then it links to the diffs of my two subsequent removals on TRM's page. Now, I acknowledge that my first removal lacked a clear explanation (which was because I had assumed – with good reasons, though possibly mistakenly – that TRM must have known it was a banned vandal; see explanation here). However, by the time I did the second removal and by the time TRM did his second reinstatement and I blocked him, he had seen – and chosen to defy – this warning on my talkpage. Now, you might say that could have been worded less confrontationally, but was there a lack of clarity? I dare say no. (I'm stressing this because TRM and some others were repeating over and over again that allegedly I warned him only via that edit summary, which is simply not true.) – Also, I have no idea what is supposed to be "incivil and inflammatory" about the question "can't you read the page history?" – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. I realize I am reading this stuff while calmly sitting here with my coffee with no annoying trolls anywhere in sight (coworkers excepted :), almost two weeks after the original dispute, but here's what I think of that first diff. Yes, it's "clear" in the sense that you clearly told TRM what to do and he clearly didn't do as he was told. But it's not "clear" in the sense of actually communicating what the problem is: which banned user it is, how you know, why or how he's harassing you, and so forth. Just telling a long-standing editor "do as I say" isn't enough. I read the explanation in your sandbox and I see a lot of "assuming" going on - which may well have been reasonable assumptions, but removing someone's own post from their talk page "assuming" they won't want it is kind of an aggressive act, against someone who's already annoyed with you, you know? That warrants a real explanation.
 * On the second question, well, "Can't you read?" is snarky at best, rude as a response to a question - a minor thing in isolation, but it's part of the pattern. (I also chose that example specifically because it's unpleasant but does not involve profanity, which I think is mostly a distraction.)
 * The other thing that's obvious about reading your responses in this incident is being (understandably) very frustrated by the whole thing. That's why I included point 2 in the motion, recommending that some kind of standard approach be worked out for explaining reverts of long-term harassers and abusers whose misbehavior isn't obvious at first glance. That way people who aren't familiar with the issue are more likely to get the point before they drive everyone crazy, and people who are already frustrated don't have to write up (as many) free-form explanations about things that annoy them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I too was very impressed with your handling of this from start to finish (noting I am referring to your post above when I say "finish", rather than suggesting the work on this has already finished when it might not really be finished yet). I look forward to seeing more great things from you in the future too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is quite widely recognized, or if not it should be, that Opabinia regalis is The Best™ at, and I quote "Writing shit that people understand". --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unprompted positive feedback about something arb-related? Are pigs flying now? Hold on, I have to go see if I can get some pork wings for lunch ;) Thanks; I don't know about great things, but I guess we can aim for Understandable Shit! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kaspar Gutman Award

 * Thanks . I'll have to go with inspiration on that one. I know I've read the book, but it must have been a long time ago... Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited YqeY protein domain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cis. 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) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Along those lines
Re: the box at the top of your userpage, you probably saw this recent paper on a similar topic in PLOS ONE (with pretty decent associated commentary from The Atlantic)... MastCell Talk 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I hadn't seen that one; thanks! I came across the GitHub one because it was making the rounds on teh twitterz.
 * I am, of course, shocked at both sets of results; we all know that girls get special treatment because of feminazis and affirmative action and stuff and every time they open their mouths they're just so shrill and who wants to listen to that? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool
Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following [ http://goo.gl/forms/ZyYQm6uu7e form]. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz

Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABHello! 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susan S. Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council. 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) 10:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

AN thread
I just noticed your post in the AN thread and agree with you completely. I'm going to deal with this in the morning (EDT) when I'm more awake, but my inclination is to zap the tag as a BLP violation. I had the same reaction when I saw a suggestion of the same tag on ETW's article over the weekend, which she likewise had nothing to do with creating or editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Please see the idiocy at Template talk:Connected contributor where there is a completely gratuitous link between the user name and the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I'm not losing my mind. Glad to see it was sorted out by the time I'd had my coffee this morning. I tweaked the template talk thread also. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats
On ArbCom. Honestly, I have no idea why you'd want to do that to yourself, but good luck!

I should be back around more. Senior year finally calming down a bit. ~ RobTalk 16:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though I'm still not sure if that's a case for congratulations or commiserations ;) Good to see you around again, early congrats on graduation! Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you have a look
At this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. Take a look here, for the overall effort, and look at a couple of pages linked on the sandbox page? Thanks for your opinion—which you can leave at Talk, there. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Opabina, le prof has really gone off the rails here.  He first approached XyXan aggressively at their Talk page here and I advised him to post a discussion, neutrally, to WikiProject Companies, and instead he actually posted here to WikiProject Math and here to WikiProject Math & Theoretical Biology and here to WIkiProject Graphic Design and here to WikiProject Computational Biology and here to WikiProject Statistics. Those boards are of course for people who edit articles about graphic design or about math or about math and theoretical biology or about computational biology or about statistics,  not people who edit articles about companies. And worst, he posted here to the talk page of the article about Cladistics, which i removed as it is completely inappropriate as it has nothing to do with improving the content of that article.  And he actually pointed people to this which he created in another user's space.  Which I have speedy tagged for deletion as nonsense.  I have opened the discussion, neutrally, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies and also posted notice of that at WT:MED since some users there care about pharma company articles and most of these diagrams are on pharma company articles.
 * But LeProf has (per his usual) personalized the thing he is all inflamed over and is addressing it in inappropriate ways, and could use some admin reining in, if you don't mind. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

bsns means cat
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.0.208.243 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 second for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

Now go write an article instead of screwing around on AN :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed: User: ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

Request reason:

Notes:
 * In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
 * Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only: If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, substituting blocking administrator with the name of the blocking admin:


 * {&#123;Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2= | 3 = &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;&#125;}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting   with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.


 * {&#123;unblock reviewed | 1= | decline =   &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;&#125;}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here</tt> with your rationale:


 * <tt>{&#123;unblock reviewed | 1= | accept = accept reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;&#125;}</tt>


 * I'm sorry but, per WP:ASDFargrhrfrfrt, you must [prrrrrrtprtrfsfdfffft] before your request can be considered. Continued use of your talk page for cat pictures while blocked may result in the revocation of your talk-page access. 128.0.208.243 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Removal
Opabinia regalis,

What I removed wasn't the cat pictures, it was this phrase, which looks like patent nonsense: I'm sorry but, per WP:ASDFargrhrfrfrt, you must [prrrrrrtprtrfsfdfffft] before your request can be considered. I get it, that it's a joke and I won't touch it again, just wanted to let you know why I removed it. Kosh Vorlon  17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Far from it being nonsense, it is a postmodern critique of the Wikipedia block enforcement policy. 93.109.172.116 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So that's what cats are trying to say when they stomp on the keyboard! Google translate never gets this stuff right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Imagine a Google Translate For Cats. We can make it happen. 93.109.172.116 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the right time of year for this ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ
Ever since I saw that, I've been waiting for a chance to use it in a sentence. Like "Sorry, I'm busy, going for some OMGWTFBBQ". ;-)

Thanks for seeing the whole landscape. Widr (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's an OMGWTFBBQ place down the street from me... ;) Congratulations! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dogs > cats
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:pink; background-color:sky blue; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:8px; vertical-align: middle;" class="plainlinks">

~ RobTalk has given you a doggy! Doggies promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread WikiLove by placing a doggy on other user's talk pages by adding to their talk page. Happy editing!

This may seem like a nice gesture, but really it's the start of a bitter war against all cat lovers. ~ RobTalk 23:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Challenge accepted! I'll make it a fair fight. Here's the first contenders in the cute-off:


 * (Nah, if I had time and space for a dog I'd definitely have one maybe three. For some reason Babou makes a lousy running buddy ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * HELPLESS PUPPIES DECIMATED BY FERAL CAT. 93.109.172.116 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mew! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)



April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ps: happy Easter! Christ lag in Todesbanden my music today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, Happy Easter to you too. Congratulations on TFA; it's an excellent article and a perfect choice :) Not much for church celebrations but I've symbolically sacrificed a chocolate bunny ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Did you see the infobox? Developed here, in enjoyable collaboration! I could sing a different tune about Andy's discussion style than some others: helpful, open, listening, patiently explaining. Infobox Bach composition is now included 208 times, uncontroversially so. - The TFA was also created in collaboration, with Thoughtfortheday who got too little praise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ps: POV. If some look at the discussion at The Rite of Spring, they see disruption, while I see a polite question, a suggestion and then patiently explaining the same things explained for years (then eight, now eleven. The so-called infobox wars began in 2005, and I am sure they are over, only some seem still to profit from them and don't want to admit that.) Forgiving sins is one thing, but coming to see the "sins" were not even sins would be another. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the definitions of "sin" and "disruption" are crowdsourced ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand that. - I remember that I felt that I finally "belonged" to the outcasts when one of my edits was called "disruptive". I confess that I felt even better when the editor who had reverted, ;)  --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the chocolate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK ... that Bach created an "operatic scene" in his cantata Halt im Gedächtnis Jesum Christ, BWV 67, with Jesus serenely repeating "Peace be with you" against the raging of the enemies? (that was a 2012 hook, - in 2013 we had trumpets calling - not to battle but to dance, in 2016 ice-breaking). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)




 * What do the trumpets tell you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Article width
It's really, really, really bad how articles fill the entire width the screen. I was wondering why nothing's been done about it all this long, but then I remembered. 93.109.172.116 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of me wishes the WMF would just say "We fixed our shitty-looking website so it doesn't make you wonder if you fell in a time warp to 2005 anymore, and if you don't like it then get stuffed." But they have an awful tendency to take a good idea and turn it into a giant steaming shitpile. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A random, passing interjection: I often click the "Mobile view" button right down at the bottom to use the tablet formatting of the site on my desktop. WikiWand is also a pleasant alternative. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's funny; even on my phone I use the desktop view. The mobile version is much prettier, but trying to do anything with it makes me want to remove my thumbs to get rid of the temptation ;) Do you use it to edit or just read? Wikiwand is even prettier, maybe the WMF should just buy them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean actually. I edit in the desktop version and read in the mobile version. I've tried editing with my phone on long journeys before, but I find anything more than a punctuation correction is too difficult without a keyboard. Even Wikiwand's rendering of the front page is good, but for some reason using it feels disloyal! T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'm not convinced there's any such thing as a good rendering of the current front page! It was nice to see some science on it though :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"
Hi Opabinia regalis. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:BU Rob13
Would you clarify your position on WP:ANRFC transclusion at User talk:BU Rob13? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I have proposed a compromise transclusion and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhh! Invitation to Women in Espionage
--Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Deletion review for Template:Important concept
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Important concept. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shwangtianyuan  Happy Chinese New Year to everyone  04:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured bullshit
Well, isn't it time we got an update? I need my fill. Izkala (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You ask for bullshit, you get some bullshit ;) We should try this with which articles get the most revdel/oversight attention... Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

wp:family thread at wp:sock
Hello OR,

Is someone supposed to weigh the !votes on the wp:family thread at wp:sock, and close it or something? Can we at least get consensus for rewrite if not for deletion? Tks Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an Official RfC, with a legobot tag and everything, isn't it? By default they run for 30 days. If enough time has passed, you can put it on WP:ANRFC to ask someone to close it, or post at AN I guess if no one takes the bait. There's kind of a backlog for RfC closes, but that one might be interesting enough to attract attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep an eye on that... In general, I studiously ignore administrative details here on WP. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Smart decision. Very smart :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Lehmann
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Pro gamer achievements
User:Prisencolin has asked for a deletion review of Template:Pro gamer achievements. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather disappointed in the result on TfD Template: Anthony Marinelli
I'm rather disappointed in your rulingTemplate:Anthony Marinelli TFD to reinforce a local consensus, based upon an eassy WP:TCREEP over the guideline WP:ADVICEPAGE which reads in part:

Emphasis mine

Additionally, an earlier RfC on the matter failed to gain consensus, without mentioning that the restriction would already violate existing guidelines.

I also note that you have factored declared paid editing into your decision. That community is currently bending over backwards to comply with the Wikipedia guideline (and outing in a separate category) which are more stringent than that of the Foundation. I can understand a prejudice over undeclared editing, but carrying this prejudice over to declared editors is counter-productive to the will of the Foundation.

Thanks for reading TfD and sticking your neck out, but I don't agree with your logic, or that the consensus was reached to override an existing guideline. 009o9 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I think you're cherry-picking advice. In fact, I see you made essentially this argument in the TfD already, and it did not gain consensus. The advice that best fits this situation is at WP:NAVBOX.
 * Now, I didn't say paid editing had an effect on the outcome, only noted that the point had been raised in the discussion. Personally, I don't see much difference if you're paid to edit this or if you're Marinelli's super biggest #1 fan; the observed result of over-emphasis on a minor topic is the same. Though I do note this TfD was filed on November 10 - five months ago - originally closed and then reopened after your DRV in December, closed again in February, and now here we are in mid April. A category serving the same navigational purpose was suggested and then created on November 11. Whether or not you're being paid to keep rearguing this, a reasonable compromise was reached a day after the nomination. You can of course take this back to DRV if you like (though if it got relisted again, with the way things have been going at TfD lately, it wouldn't get re-re-closed till June ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The template is not the issue, nor am I being paid to keep arguing it. The issue is rulings like this one that reinforce the preferences of a few bullies who will not take their personal preference properly through WP:PROPOSAL, nor adhere the the published guidance. Basically there are a few small groups like this of marauding editors who feel that their local-consensus can override policies and guidelines. I'm finding this is also the case in the Book Project, AfC, AfD, etc.


 * The nomination itself was specious, there is written guidance on navboxes, but only excluding actors (also in MOSFILM). The nomination cited no policies or guidelines and did not initially disclose that an RfC on the matter had failed six months earlier. Creating a Category and removing my client's Filmography from his Biography does not seem like a compromise to me.Diff (I may or may not have created the category anyway.)


 * The whole episode makes me wonder, why am I bothering to abide by the policies and guidelines? 009o9 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and supports the closure, in my opinion. Policies and guidelines are not the rules that make up the backbone of our site. They're documentation of existing community consensus. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which is also a policy. ~ RobTalk 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rob I don't see the deletion of navigation aids to be "improving the Wikipedia" as per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CONLIMITED (contained within) addresses this situation succinctly.


 * So somehow a 6 to 6 discussion is consensus for a deletion? Where is this "consensus" against all film navboxes (except directors and producers) stated? Months later, it's still not in the MOS. 009o9 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So somehow a 6 to 6 discussion is consensus for a deletion? Where is this "consensus" against all film navboxes (except directors and producers) stated? Months later, it's still not in the MOS. 009o9 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, is right; you're focusing on the wrong things. There's no such thing as stare decicis around here anyway. If you feel that you're being bullied, you should take your evidence to a dispute resolution venue, but in this specific instance I don't see bullying, just people disagreeing with you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Opabinia regalis I have to respectfully disagree with your stare decicis argument, the nominating editor uses other TfDs (uncontested at that) as precedents to justify further deletions. WP:PGLIFE agrees with me on precedence, it also describes the proper way to modify guidelines so that the readership is aware of the new parameters. Supporting unwritten local consensus only makes it that much harder for volunteers to contribute and probably has a lot to do with the languishing participation you mentioned earlier.


 * Like I said, I really don't care about the infobox template, but the WP:OWN practiced by the some Projects, without documenting the new rule(s) is ridiculous. 009o9 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but if you think this is a general problem, then you need to raise it in a community venue, not in an obscure TfD or a talkpage with a few dozen watchers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried to get a couple of project level RfCs going, basically to either document the new preference or decline it. They generally die on the vine from apathy. Since it is generally administrators who close the XfDs, and the fact that they may not be aware of the (project level) problem, what forum would be appropriate? 009o9 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Float the idea at the village pump? I'll be honest, I think "general apathy" is a good description of the response you'll get, but you can always give it a shot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
For the guidance you provided at my Talk page, regarding the neutrality of notifications. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI
A discussion. Just letting you know because you previously commented about this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Photography
--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Major capsid protein VP1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viral. 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) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy 😊 Adminship!!
Wseef (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
 Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for helping with the oversight thing!

~ RobTalk 23:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * No problem! If only all such requests came with a kitten... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have given you a puppy, but I didn't think your helpfulness quite rose to that level. ~ RobTalk 02:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll endeavor to remain at a moderate kittenful level of helpfulness. I mean, I'd have to take a puppy outside to ANI like, every three hours. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (watching:) I that I was taken to ANI (Great Dismal Swamp) only once, - I was luckier with arbitration, - haven't found a redirect for that yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone did do this for AE ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No redirect, though, and - judging from my experience - too weak. AE broke my pride, DYK? (I was determined to not appeal, until this) Find something strong, because I still feel ashamed that it could happen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:WATERTORTURE would have to be a dab page... ;)
 * No doubt AE and ARCA are frustrating places to find yourself in. This "come cap-in-hand back to the group that sanctioned you in the first place" thing is indeed kind of galling, though we're not really set up to do it any other way. I guess at least an appeal a year later goes to a new set of arbs... Maybe some arbs need a poke to go look at Andy's again, there's a lot of open business at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AE is a complete waste of time, as far as I observed. To be avoided at all cost, even your pride. - Tomorrow we see another one of my GAs on DYK. At the height of the infobox-cold-war, I could not have added an infobox to it, - we came a long way, compared to sweetness such as this, - tell your colleagues, with chocolate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So happy the reflected friend is back, - any image of a happily dancing cat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Four years ago, we set QAI member #1 free (free to found the project). I decorated my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I enjoy the soft music of this silence ;)
 * Surprising but welcome :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you know that I nominated for DYK (not my article) in February, hoping that it might become a fitting comment: ... that Richard Dehmel (pictured) said that "Befreit", the Lied setting of his poem by Richard Strauss, was "a little bit too soft compared to the text, but it appeals to most people"? "Befreit" means "freed, released, liberated".
 * In your response to the single question that broke the silence, did you intentionally link only to the second motion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, since that was the ambiguous one. Doesn't matter much, I think. Nice article :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * tell the author whose work I abused for a message ;) - I don't know if ignore ignore ignore is the right answer to a FAR, - what do you think? First they move an article (twice), then they unbold a redirect, then they take a critical part out, then they say "instable" and "unbalanced". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I had reason to look at our sad list today: is unbanning Kiefer a topic? Seemed so wrong. Reason: read "Letting go of the past" (Precious anniversary of the author) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched FAC/FAR in over a year; I am the wrong person for that :) As for Kiefer, well, he'd have to appeal first.... 19:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have to touch, just say that ignoring is the best approach - or not, and perhaps what you think of a giant user's replies. Would arbcom never apologize for a mistake, without being asked for it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion I haven't read about an article I haven't read about a topic I know nothing about? Exceeds even my capacity for half-informed spouting-off ;)
 * The only fair way to do appeals is to, well, wait till someone appeals. The time/effort/attention/etc. should be allocated to the people who actually want to come back and are willing to discuss it, not to whoever the current arbs think might want to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The witch of Pungo was befreit after 300 years ("Governor Tim Kaine officially restored Sherwood's good name on July 10, 2006, the 300th anniversary of her conviction.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about those too proud to appeal? I was one of them until this, please read the closing statement slowly, it's not long. Continued - same player - on the Bach cantata, but by now a few helpers showed up on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: in the context of due process, in case you missed that irony, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Call it asking a question instead of appealing if you want :) They still need to actually contact us first. Yes, ironic timing indeed on that one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

UI testing
To follow up on our conversation at VPT: UI work isn't hard science. The industry standard is to test about five users, because 85% of user interface problems (assuming average visibility, which is 31%) can be reliably identified by testing just five people in a single study. So the usual standard is to test five, fix what you learned, and repeat. In the instant case, the problem has somewhat higher than average visibility (about 50%), and has been tested in far more than five users over multiple studies. Given the total numbers and the uniformity of the results over time and across testing systems, I think it is not unreasonable to refer to it as a fact that at least some new users are confused by this.

If you'd like to see UI testing in action, then you can sign up to be a research participant. They do hour-long, recorded video calls for people who aren't in the Bay area or at an event where they're testing. The link to the sign-up form is on mediawiki.org. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. (I confess to a bit of this problem ;) I realize that by telling a group of Wikipedia editors about this, you're telling a self-selected group that either didn't find this confusing, or got over it quickly, and are therefore naturally skeptical of the claim that this is a high-visibility serious issue. But if it is such a robust effect, you must have also studied the effects of the proposed intervention and seen a measurable improvement, and those measurements can be scaled up to a larger sample size. And the improvement hopefully means that the allegedly confused new editors are then, once relieved of their confusion, able to go on to make productive and useful edits. My entirely non-scientific instinct is, frankly, that people starting out this far down on the learning curve are not going to learn enough independently to avoid making messes regardless of what label's on the button. I will also confess to unreasonable irritation that just about any experienced user could make a list a mile long of what sucks about the interface, but this kind of deck-chair-rearranging with no publicly documented justification and no demand from the existing userbase is what gets apparent priority. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This change requires very little dev time, so it doesn't require official approval and budgets and whatnot. Unlike, say, the plan to completely re-write the wikitext editor, which is underway.
 * The testing method for this has been face-to-face interviews. The measurement is stated confusion.  It doesn't scale.  And the point isn't primarily being able to go on to make productive and useful edits.  It's more like not saving edits that you didn't want to have read by the entire world, which is not something that you can realistically measure through edit counts.  There's no log that can tell you the user's intentions.  (In re XKCD 435:  Me, too.  And, yes, we're dealing with people who have self-selected for having figured it out.  It's very hard to remember how complicated this stuff is, when you've got our level of success and experience.)  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I'm back in "not buying it" territory, sorry ;) People who are confused behave differently than people who are not confused. If there is no detectable difference in behavior between those who claim confusion and those who don't, then the confusion is epiphenomenal and irrelevant. But you've implied twice now that there is a detectable difference in behavior: people who are not confused are less likely to post private information. So you do have an observable after all. You predict that people who click a button labeled "Publish" will prompt fewer suppression actions, have fewer pages deleted, and/or have their edit text persist longer compared to people who click a button "Save page". But apparently no one intends to test whether the change has actually had the predicted effect. I hope you've at least tested in the interview format whether the "Publish" version actually reduces claimed confusion. ("Save changes", "Save edits", "Submit", and "Post" all come to mind as much more intuitive alternatives, so surely there is some reason "Publish" has been chosen, other than a bullet point on an unpublished powerpoint slide. If this hasn't been tested, then, well, at least I'll finally understand how Flow could have happened.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Publish" is a legally significant term. While it's possible to use others ("Save and Publish" was suggested by someone today), what you are doing when you 'save' or 'post' something on any public wiki is publishing it.  Making this fact clearer (e.g., yes, what you're clicking on will count as 'publication' as defined in laws about libel) can only be considered a good thing.
 * If the stated rationales for deletion, etc., were always precise, accurate and complete, and if the people whose behavior changed had no other differences from editors who did not change their behavior (e.g., if the type of editor who would hesitate over "publising" something were not also the type of editor who would avoid writing 'Johnny is gay' on an article), then it would be possible to test for that in a scalable, automated fashion. However, none of those assumptions are valid.  Even if those were valid, we're talking about having a small effect on an infrequent (although sometimes very severe) problem, in a system with a lot of noise.  Even at the English Wikipedia, it could take a very long time to be certain that any such effect was real – and if you don't find an effect in the particular thing that you tried to measure, then you still don't know that making the change would have no effect.  You only know that the specific effect that you hypothesized was not seen – and that the effect you have already documented (of individual, personally interviewed users saying that they're confused) still exists.
 * At worst, this change is expected to be harmless to new users, except possibly Wikinews, which has a formal process that differentiates drafts from 'finished' articles and which is called "publication". It might be confusing there to "Publish" a page and then be told that it's not "really published" yet.   Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The people who are sincerely confused about whether the "save page" button will save the page are very low on the clue scale. The people who are typing libelous things in the edit window and then clicking "save page" without realizing their libel will become public are the most clueless of the clueless. The expectation that they will have any idea whatsoever that "publish" is a legally significant term in this context strikes me as completely unrealistic. I still don't understand from the way you describe this - "this change is expected to be harmless..." - whether you have actually tested it and found it harmless, or better yet, actually effective at solving the problem - or if this is just sort of a vague hope. Having information about user behavior in that context would surely facilitate the definition of predicted changes at scale. If the aim is instead something more like "it's better for the WMF's legal position to use a legally significant term so that we can do a better job of dealing with libelous posts", then that's a perfectly reasonable goal, but it's not really the way the proposed change was originally described (The "Save page" button when you edit will be called "Publish" instead. This is to help new editors understand what it does., and follow-up comments about what actions feel "risky") nor does it really mean less mess for the rest of us to clean up. Sounds more like "when someone makes a mess, we want a bigger mop".
 * If I sound grumpy, it's because I just read that VE thread at the village pump. To be honest, you (as in the WMF, not you personally) get resistance to seemingly minor, "expected to be harmless" changes because they get fucked up so often. Reliable, consistent, and usable publication of data from user testing - by which I mean not powerpoint slides - is one way to alleviate this problem. People are more likely to go along with seemingly unimportant or counterintuitive changes if their basis in evidence is readily apparent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Request to be Unblocked
Hi Opabinia, did you and the rest of the Arbcom mailing list receive my email of April 24? I asked to be unblocked. I was a contributor of solid content for five or six years before I was perma-blocked without warning with a button click falsely labeling me a sockpuppet by an administrator that didn't explain anything.

I was proud of my contributions to Wikipedia and would like to do so again. As you look into my case (as I expect you to, given your position as arbitrator) do not accept as fact any accusation against me without allowing me to respond. I have endured many many lies and WP:AN/ANI mob attacks in which I was muted and my defenses erased, resulting in damage to my reputation as an editor. Further, do not accept the assertion of Thryduulf at my talkpage that I am on an "appeal timer," because he has no authority to do any such thing and there is nothing in policy that allows him this, as well his purporting timing is unevidenced and suspect.

Answer my email or unblock my talkpage and we'll be able to communicate about this important matter. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.207.162 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've posted this same text to six arbs' talk pages now, and you've already been told the answer: we didn't get your email and you're not eligible to appeal now in any case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I wanted each of you to get the message. If there's a problem with the list receiving emails, I presume you'd want to know about it. Why am I uneligible to appeal now? The last time Arbcom actually looked at it that I know of was close to two years ago. I have no idea why Gorilla said "19 January." She's fond of MLK Jr. Day? You guys don't seem to be keen on explaining things.


 * I think Arbcom loses legitimacy each time it acts capriciously and based on whim, or even malice. Identify the policy you're relying on and develop your position based on that. Do you even know why I'm banned? Do you care? Like I said at Doug Weller's page, I originally created several articles, heavily developed many more. Were I not unjustly perma-blocked these past few years, Wikipedia would have a similar amount more solid content, thanks to me. Is that insignificant to you? Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.202.247 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Izkala
Please look at the most recent history of this user's edits. Although they self-reverted, I'm very uncomfortable with their having the template editor privilege. I saw that you granted the privilege among others recently and your explanation why, but their block log from 2015 backwards is lengthy and not pretty. I would be in favor of at least removing the template editor privilege. The user doesn't appear to have good judgment, and the previous blocks for personal attacks don't seem to have stopped based on the edit summary, "odd, I don't seem to recall having asked if any privileged assholes agree with me. in any case, it more closely reflects reality". You probably are privy to information I don't have based on your unblock of the user after their being blocked indefinitely by Anna, but that doesn't alter my mind about the present situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts on my block log. Perhaps if we decorated it with cat pictures?  Izkala (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I don't agree in this case - a large fraction of Izkala's recent edits have been template-related, and they're productive and useful. The present situation seems to consist of two rude edit summaries and a self-revert, and seems to be over, and looks more like a case of "that was rude, put a dollar in the swear jar" than something warranting escalation. I suggest SPI should adopt a nice mascot and put him in the header instead ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)== Test thread ==

Test test test. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Spotlight on women entertainers!
--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Elected to arbcom
Twelve of Fourteen: You have been elected to arbcom. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. NE Ent 09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna be a dick about how I think you're now a shill of the establishment, but I'm also gonna sprinkle a load of pop culture references to mask my dickery. Izkala (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Waaaaait, what happened when we picked numbers? I want to be at least in the top half of.... owwww! This assimilation thing is a bitch.
 * Maybe I am a shill of the establishment. There are five lights! OK, I just looked that up and it turns out that was the Cardassians. Apparently I don't actually remember any of the relevant plot points, just the memes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, I could have sworn that whole bit was from when Picard was a Borg. My indoctrination has failed me! nooooooooo Keilana (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too! Or maybe I only thought that because you thought that. Shit. So there's no assimilation quality control, huh? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you're happy, I've had the "Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain" song stuck in my head for the past, like, 12 hours. Apparently we mind-melded during our assimilation? Keilana (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the number of 14-to-1 votes I was on the short end of even in my seventh year on the Committee, I'm not sure this assimilation thing always works as well as it's supposed to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What's a shill? I just thought I would gather a few "authentic" definitions. Irondome (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh shill. We even have an article on it. Irondome (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As in "shill probably be sorry she took this job"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry or not, I'm happy you did, meaning all you arbs in this thread, not only the 14:1 who was the only one representing me then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed NYB. And please don't call me Shirley. Irondome (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Emoji_u1f43e.svg. and she always has kittens! How much better could this be. hugs and paw pats all around.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 15:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * NYB, does that make you Loquacious of Borg? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but this was my favorite vote on an ArbCom matter ever. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)



Looks like a good image for the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was my assumption that anyone familiar enough with the trekverse enough to toss a "we are not Borg" would pick up the obvious inference to Seven of Nine, who, as a former Borg, was obviously not a shill for the collective. And, of course, the whole Borg drama was about the circumstance that, as it turned out, resistance was not futile. NE Ent 21:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Now, is it too late for you to withdraw that case you filed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, Ent ;) Though I was a bit startled to realize how long it's been since Voyager was on the air....
 * Of course, if this were a Star Trek episode, this would be the time when a nearby wormhole is conveniently discovered, and it turns out to be possible to create a distortion in the spacetime continuum just large enough to go back in time to March 31 and convince the Signpost to run some lolcats for April Fool's instead... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
It's a copyediting math-cat. I should have gotten me one earlier.

Drmies (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Okay, I've had this tab open for like an hour right next to the manuscript I'm working on and it's not copyedited yet. Maybe I need to leave some treats? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions
Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.

The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:


 * Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"


 * In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"


 * Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?


 * Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?

To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jus da  fax   11:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Jusdafax, if you think "the ineptness of many current arbs" is an astonishing comment, I take it you've not had dealings with many arbs? I struggle to think of a time when there haven't been at least three arbs on the committee I'd describe as inept; while the current arbs presumably feel it would be inappropriate to name names, I'd be surprised if most (all?) of them couldn't privately name at least three colleagues they consider dead weight. Hell, my own eptness levels were not high, and I like to think I was nowhere near the worst of that particular batch. &#8209; Iridescent 11:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Point being that rank and file editors are being threatened on that page and on their Talk pages by two admins who volunteered to moderate the proposed RfC, which has increasingly focused on "casting aspersions" which, as shown, is more than a bit hypocritical. This was an extremely bold step on my part, but I felt, under the circumstances, I had no choice but to go wide with my observations. By the way, I borrowed your red color in your signature years ago and I don't remember thanking you, which I now do! Jus  da  fax   11:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all,, I'm not your target audience; I'm recused as an arb on GMO matters because I participated in the original case (ineptly, apparently - I regret that I didn't find more time for that case considering how it went). Second, I can think of very few issues where posting identical messages on every active arb's talk page is a good solution, and someone calling us inept on a talk page is not one of them. I'm pretty sure arbcom has always been "inept" in somebody's estimation. Third, starting thirteen identical conversations about someone's alleged aspersion-casting is breaking my irony meter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jusdafax, you're leaving this everywhere? And I thought I was special. Also, yeah, that doesn't help your case. You've been here long enough to know WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:ADMINSHOP, WP:OTHERPARENT. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, I've been an editor close on to a decade now, and I have never before seen anything quite like the framing I'm seeing in this proposed GMO RFC at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC, nor the outright intimidation. Given the high level of concern I felt yesterday, I deemed it wise to notify ArbCom regarding what I feel was an over-the-top level of bullying and harassment by admins claiming ArbCom backing as they prepared to shut down discussion on the page in question. My feeling that it was important to notify the entire body. Despite my being named as a party in the GMO case out of spite, in reaction to my statement, I was only peripherally involved and indeed only mentioned when I pointed out bullying by an admin who, perhaps not coincidentally, is in hot water again in a current ArbCom case. Yesterday I was alarmed to see threats and proposed sanctions. I decided to shine a very bright light on the proceedings. If this is to be termed forum shopping, so be it. Right now you have an editor, blocked during the ArbCom case for outing, threatening to go to ArbCom because he didn't get his way in getting a slanted RfC at once and saying he "won't be waiting very long." I'd say that's the editor you should be concerned with. I know it's a lot to read through, but we are talking about a fundamental change in the way Wikipedia does things. And again, I'm very very concerned, enough to take this extraordinary step. Thanks for your attention. Jus  da  fax   19:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That horrible editor who is threatening to go to ArbCom is me. See you soon! { --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that this is about GMOs, and OR is recused from anything about GMOs, so I'll bring up something that isn't really about GMOs. As for how was supposedly so nasty to all you important folks, well, it really wasn't such a big deal in context (so please feel better, Drmies). Way back many Wiki-years ago, Jusdafax and I were actually good Wiki-friends, believe it or not. That was when he and I were working together on trying to create a non-ArbCom, community-based system for desysopping. I bet if I went back and looked hard enough, I could find a diff of Jusdafax opining about how so many administrators are inept. Indeed, his posting to all the Arbs' pages is really more about how he thinks that  is a "bully" administrator for trying to enact DS: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory calling into question the veracity of a respected editor's motivations. I wonder about your very energetic and consistent participation in this matter, Trypto, after you summarized the two most prominent papers speaking to the "other side" of the GMO safety issue (Krimsky 2015 and Domingo 2011) with only two words: "and see". Still to this day, these papers reviewing over 22 MEDRS-compliant studies that found less than glowing results on GMO food safety are relegated to the controversy section in a single sentence that does not elaborate on the,m but does include a rebuttal from a barely relevant paper (Panchen). If this GMO issue is to be resolved, any editor who can be shown to be using bias like this should be topic banned, period, end of story. Instead they are the very editors dedicating immense amounts of time and energy to framing (controlling) the narrative on talk pages like this, and indeed on the pages of this encyclopedia. You see no editor or group of editors wildly complaining about the lack of unbiased coverage, yet the story being told is that fringe theorists have run amok and must be tamed, and that Trypto and King can be trusted to help.The question is, can Wikiepdia put facts and neutrality above friendships and the buddy system? I hope so.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only banned two editors from my user talk page, and Petrarchan47 is one of them. If anyone needs to examine further any of my sourcing or conduct, I'll be very happy to back up everything I've said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked and the title of this page is still User talk:Opabinia regalis, not Complaints Department. (Is that a redirect to ANI? I'm not going to preview to check, but I hope it is.) Next person who posts aspersions in the "casting aspersions" thread is getting a genetically modified trout. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I promise this isn't an aspersion, and I don't even think there are any GMOs in it, but I just made that redirect for the Complaints Dept. (And by the way, nobody can trout me, because I'm already a fish.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Since you're a fish, I guess I'd have to send you a whale, then? Don't get eaten! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a very sensitive issue for me! When I was a fry, I saw 647 of my siblings get swallowed by one of those! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? All of my siblings got eaten, squished, crushed, or trapped by rocks. At least there weren't any whales back then, and the fish didn't even have jaws yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And once upon a time people called me the arbitrator with no backbone. But that was just because of some of my votes on remedies.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just you, and not ? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Inveterate invertebrate isn't inept. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For additional invertebrate companionship, please refer to User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It says Jimbo Wales is a cetacean. If I knew any Welsh, this would be where I would make a sound that sounds like coughing up a fur ball. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is he? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That cetacean joke was awful. Did you really post that on porpoise? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was really bad. If you think of a better one, let minnow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This conversation is in danger of floundering. We'd better stop now before I get a haddock. (And if you respond, you'll have to speak louder; I'm hard of herring.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Trouts all around! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop being so crabby. I never knew you to be so shellfish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I never thought I'd sea so many bad puns in one plaice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Brad. I was just trying to coral things. But I'll endeavor to be a perfect angelfish from now on. OR, you should see my talk page (or EEng's or Atsme's). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean there are more people willing to make jokes this crappie? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a whole school of us. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes flag
Hey. Would you mind removing my pending changes reviewer flag? I rarely use it, so I have no real need for it. It's been a long time since I did vandalism revision. ~ RobTalk 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Fantasizes about vacation in Italy*
 * *Fantasy does not involve Wikipedia in any way*
 * ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? All of my fantasies of vacationing in Italy have to include Wikipedia. I'm a broke grad student! ~ RobTalk 21:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Start submitting abstracts to conferences based on how much you want to visit the city they're happening in ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As funny as that is, this is exactly what grad students do. I met a graduate student while visiting Michigan State who just happened to find two ideal conferences to present at in London and Rome. All covered by the department. ~ RobTalk 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's how I try to book my travel to and from work. Twelve hour layover in London, might as well catch the Changing of the Guard. Twenty four hour layover in Beijing, why not check out the Forbidden Palace or Great Wall. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think I could sell my department on a one week layover in Rome on my way from Philadelphia to New York? ~ RobTalk 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I know how this works ;) Just show the Department of Beancounters a direct itinerary of equal or greater cost compared your proposed alternative route. Bury the private helicopter rental agreement in the fine print. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

YGM
~ RobTalk 01:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galdieria sulphuraria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy. 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) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Acidilobus saccharovorans
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)