User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caspian cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subcutaneous. 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) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Ribonuclease H
 * added links pointing to Substrate and Oligo


 * Amphinase
 * added a link pointing to Substrates


 * Endonuclease V
 * added a link pointing to Substrate


 * Ranpirnase
 * added a link pointing to Substrate


 * Ribonuclease T
 * added a link pointing to Substrate


 * Ribonuclease V1
 * added a link pointing to Substrate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bovine pancreatic ribonuclease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy. 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) 09:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ribonuclease V1
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WRKY
Thanks for the edits on the WRKY transcription factor page.

I am the author of many of the papers that are cited and I have tried to re-write all of the prose as far as possible to avoid plagarizing myself (although there is only so much that you can change.....). I ran the text through a plagarism tool and it only found the Wiki article and not any of the underlying references.

As to the figures, they are my own work and are different versions of two figures that will appear in the open access journal BMC Plant Biology, sometime later this month. Either way, that should be OK.

I have changed the edits back to my original version and then further edited areas where I think the text needs to be further modified. I will continue to further modify the page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRKYpaul2 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again - still working at it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRKYpaul2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Blitz on the Enzyme article
Thanks! Glad to hear it looks like progress and not just meddling :) I posted this question on the FAR page, but since you're the image expert - what do you think of the current lead image? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Protein Dynamics Article
I would like to see the protein dynamics page improved. My contribution to this effect was reverted yesterday. If you get a second, please take a peek at my prior edits to the protein dynamics page. While not remotely comprehensive, I think it is a reasonable start to add an appreciation of water and relaxational and vibrational dynamics which are not covered in the current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look at this when I have more time tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Force field
First you explain with Physics, then you change. Force field as chemists are used to intend it, it does not make any sense neither in Physics, nor in Chemistry, nor in Maths. Please demonstrate that I am wrong, then you're more than welcome to change it back. Be scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origin2000 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * replied on the article talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Enzyme
 * added links pointing to ATP, Affinity, Tissue and Organ

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

An invitation
Kaldari (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple AFD votes
You have made multiple votes at the deletion of Dao's theorem on six circumcenters, you cannot vote more than once. SamuelDay1 (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I made two edits to that page, but one !vote. You should probably read that again. Or skip it - good lord that page is a mess. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nina Sellars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College. 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) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hannah Valantine
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Valantine's father was the Gambian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom,as The Gambia was a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations from 1965 until October 2013 - (202.89.140.117 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Klaus Schulten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beckman Institute. 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) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
thanks! I'm going to pass this on the next time my real-life collaborators are complaining about me... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscillibacter valericigenes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. 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) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  biochemistry

Thank you, female editor with a blue box, for quality articles on protein structure and folding, and people involved in biochemistry, such as Hannah Valantine, for protein and helping to rescue encyme, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks ! Blue really is a nice color ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Move of article
Does the destination User:User:TEAM 4.0/Chemicals That Are Toxic And Essential seem correct? --IO Device (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I typo'd, but I moved it again :) Now at User:TEAM 4.0/Chemicals That Are Toxic And Essential where it belongs. Thanks for noticing! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gene article
I was stalking back thought the gene talk page and noticed your work on it in 2007. I really enjoyed the recent FAR of the enzyme page so it'd if you'd stop by the gene page to help with a bit of an overhaul. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted
I don't know if you already know, but the TfD for Template:Maintained, in which you participated so vigorously and eloquently in favor of keeping, was closed as a delete based on what seems like a very cursory consideration of the debate. Some of the rest of us have already started asking the closing admin to elaborate or reconsider, if you want to join in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Opabinia regalis, I've noticed your name around recently and I wanted to drop by to say hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, as we had little interaction years ago but it's good that you're back; it's always nice to see someone return. Best. Acalamari 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! Funny how so many of the same arguments are still going on. I see I'm over a year late to congratulate you on bureaucratship :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life cycle. 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) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
…for your attention at the Molecular binding article, and forgive, my part, for any feelings of being offput by the longstanding tensions between myself and the other following editor. I hope you can persist in overlooking the battle, and continue to contribute your insights to the discussion at hand (even though you and I might disagree at present about the proper usage of "complex" vis-a-vis its questioned applicability to covalent cases). I would indeed go with where the preponderance of strong secondary sources/evidence leads, but I have no hope of an objective outcome. (I will not again waste time at an article parrying with an editor with such limitless self-confidence that he earnestly believes that his presentation of one reference should lead to acquiescence of all opposing opinion (see very first 2009 Talk entry, that page). I have said my peace, and I am away. Cheers, best wishes to you, here and in general. Le Prof.

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CDP-choline pathway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golgi. 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) 09:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pundle/Pundling
Hi OR. Pundle is given in the Oxford English dictionary only with the meanings (1) an unattractive woman and (2) the European widgeon, both obsolete. The word isn't in Merriam-Webster, nor in Chambers (1983). Pundling is in none of these. Might we suspect that we're dealing here either with a bit of local slang or even perhaps with one of those words that individual families develop, for example as an upshot of baby talk? Would it be a good idea to get rid of those two redirects, as they seem to be creating neologisms? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, they should be deleted - I was going to leave them alone till the end of the RfA so the context of the original question is available, but I have no particular objections to anyone else getting rid of them either. I didn't create the original article that introduced the term, only a redirect for the verb form, so I have no idea where it traces back to but it looks suspicious. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in cat behaviour anyway so I've opened a discussion on Pundle at RfD here. Personally, I'm not going to criticise you for things you did nine years ago, look at Sprout Crumble, for instance! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * would you mind if I add Pundling to your RfD? Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't see why not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Oh my, what a process to do manually! Anyway, ✅ --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Thanks! You made me wonder what my first new article was - apparently a two-sentence unsourced stub that has never been edited for content since I finished with it. At least sprout crumble sounds good ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I recall looking at Category:Fictional foods having served sprout crumble a few times as a side dish and thought, "Wait, we've got to have this in Wikipedia". No sources, all true information - you could get away with that in early 2006. I think it was the year after that AfD / CSD really took hold and I started to hear things like, "hey, that article that used to be on Wikipedia about 'x', where's it gone?" as long-standing but unsourced articles started to get wiped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it started on both ends of the spectrum around that time - IIRC late 2006ish also saw a lot of battling at FAC/FAR about citation standards. I do think something underappreciated got lost in the transition from 'crowdsourced personal knowledge' to 'crowdsourced source aggregator', as much as the changes have been a net benefit. There used to be a little bit of pride in finding something you knew about that Wikipedia didn't yet. Now that's explicitly the kind of thing we don't want. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

tRNA
The article at tRNA contains the rather teasing statement in the lead - "Sometimes, abnormal amino acids may be present in t-RNA." I am aware that fidelity of, for example, isoleucine transfers by Ile are about 99.997%, rather than 1005 but this sentence hints at more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC).


 * I followed up the reference and am re-writing the sentence.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks for noticing; good catch. As you saw, the original sentence misinterpreted the reference. Having looked at the textbook cited, it's full of not-quite-inaccurate-but-definitely-weird stuff. I made a simple correction; will try to clean up a bit more later today. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your request for adminship
Hi Opabinia regalis, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result and for your place on WP:RFX100. While your request was a clear pass, there was significant opposition based on your past long-term inactivity and concerns as to whether or not you're fully up-to-date with current standards; however, I'm sure you'll use careful caution, as implied by your answers to the questions and your "final comment".

Again, congratulations and welcome back to adminship. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but if I recall properly, you are the first person to have lost the tools through procedural inactivity and then regained them through a new RfA. :) Acalamari 09:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)




 * Good news! Opabinia regalis, I enjoy talking to you and will make you work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Opabinia. It's great to see you return to active editing after a long break.  I think it would be great if we can keep you active for a long time to come.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you made it! Did you want to add yourself to User:Radiant!/Classification of admins ? — Soap — 15:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. That was quite the gauntlet. Mkdw talk 16:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations ma'am! I am happy to see you return as a wonderful person to our community. Good luck my friend. <font face="Arial"> CookieMonster755  (talk)   18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks all; it's good to be back! I am actually impressed with the discussion; there was lots of conversation and nobody used the word "badger" even once! I had looked for examples beforehand and didn't come up with any other procedural cases, so I think Acalamari might be right. Probably also the owner of the lowest edit count among currently active admins. WSC, this statistic boggles my mind. That distribution looks nothing like what I expected!
 * I have joined Acalamari as an invertebrate admin ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Thanks for volunteering your time, and happy editing. North America1000 02:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations.Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 on the congratulations, and hoping I'll see you more around bio-related articles. If you need to take another hiatus, please pop in to make an occasional edit, just to spare Wikipedia the indignity of another ridiculous Oppose section should you need to run a third time. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I really do need to get back to gene eventually. I suppose if I left for another 8 years, there would be objections to less than 50k edits? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt. I'm sometimes amazed that anyone manages to increase their edit count faster than voters increase their expectations. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The back of the envelope tells me that 10k edits would take me around 1400 hours. That's good for complete paramedic training and just short of an airline transport pilot certificate. Hmmm, I looked those up to poke fun at editcountitis, but damn, I could've been a pilot with all this spare time?? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny. On the other hand, I did some back of the envelope calculations back in 2008, and estimated that the total number of hours that had been spent writing, editing, and maintaining all the English Wikipedia's articles up to then was roughly the same number of hours Americans alone spend watching TV commercials in a single day. Maybe we should replace TV commercials with piloting how-to videos. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Congrats and welcome back to the corps! I look forward to seeing you around. Here's a more appropriate T-shirt for you. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I never did get one the first time around... must've gotten lost in the mail! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now you have both. I think the second one is a more becoming color, don't you? --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Now if only this invertebrate could figure out which appendages to use the armholes for... Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My belated congratulations, even though I voted neutral in your RfA due to lack of recent activity. Good luck. Epic Genius (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I came across this user User:Opabinia externa, redirects they created to your pages, and thought you should know. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up; I know about it ;) I created a non-privileged account to use from public networks or from my phone. Figured it's worth being a little more careful about security, considering I travel semi-often. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another FYI ... just saw this. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (confer)  @ 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Did some of my
…graduate work on furanones and butenolides, and on particular vinylogous acids and esters, including ortho esters, if you ever have need of assistance in this area. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The RfC on COI
Just to be clear, I haven't !voted and I don't intend to. I brought the yes/no question because it has come up at COIN twice before: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71 and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it was time to try to settle it. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see where you're going with the idea; it just seems to me to be a huge stretch of the common meaning of "conflict of interest" to extend to entire professional fields, no matter how dubious the basis of those fields may be. I also don't think it's a useful exercise to ask "the community" who has a COI about what; I basically endorse 's more articulate comment at the RfC, in particular the observation that "the community" has a poor track record on and can't be expected to meaningfully parse complex COI issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for replying! I hear you on the huge stretch thing. i agree that mast cell's comment was wonderfully (and rarely) nuanced and i too appreciate his cynicism/realism about how labels are used. i will be very surprised if the community approaches consensus on yes or no. let me ask you - how would you concern about COI at acupuncture without an RfC? (real question)  i had considering to a more narrow one say just on acupunture....  Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my opinion's worth exactly what you paid for it, since I've never edited that article ;) But I'm not sure why this needs to be analyzed within the COI framework at all. This doesn't appear to be about someone pushing for their specific acupuncture clinic or whatever, so it's not clear to me that this is any different from any other general POV-pushing case. I suppose the issue I have with the COI-related discussions I've come across lately is that they all turn the conversation from one about edits to one about the interests of the real-life person behind the edits. Those interests are difficult to identify, often unverifiable, and not always easily stuffed into the COI box. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * :) i think about and deal with COI in my day job and here, a lot.  and deal with advocacy a lot here too (i know the difference, and i care more than anything about the resulting content being NPOV)  the grund of the "yes" side of the RfC is that alt-med practitioners will ~tend~ to push WP:FRINGE views here b/c they have a financial stake in it.  which is not crazy.   i see the "no" side too, and the danger of it being used as a cudgel.  anyway... Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Undergraduate research journal
Thank you so much for creating this article! If you have an idea for a good hook, you could propose it for DYK on the mainpage. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If only someone would actually close the JYI AfD! BTW, I had no idea there was a journals wikiproject; good to know. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!


We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name - Cell nucleus, Proteasome, and RNA interference, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox; thanks!

I would note
…that per usual, for the editor following me about, the follower's interest at the "Molecular binding" article was short-lived, and ended as soon as it was clear that he (largely) got his way, of leaving my edits off, and having the status quo maintained. I will not return to edit there, as there is enough to do in this world — which is productively, almost entirely outside of WP — without having to fight with others over the obvious. Bottom line, covalent can be mentioned, but by the thought leaders in this area it would be mentioned only to clarify that the most rigorous thinking places mechanisms that form covalent bonds into a distinctive class (i.e., its mention would be one line at the end of a paragraph, with link-outs and references, and not three equal bullet points). I have given > 30 citations (2 books and a plethora of reviews), to which there has been no comparable response. I stand by the Bob Copeland perspective, that conceptually, and methodologically, the adducts formed by a very small minority of non-covalent interactions is a distinct class from the vast majority of complexes that form non-covalent associations of various degrees of affinity. This is the last that I will do to try to interest a biochemist in this matter. I will show up from time to time to repost the opinion at the article Talk, but I will not war with the (more networked, more committed, and apparently less time-constrained) opposing, following editor. I have similarly given up at "Natural product" (my area of expertise) and at "Steroid" (significantly in my area of expertise), where the issues were entirely the same—the editor following me to article he had been largely or entirely absent at, in order to impose the personal, maleficent perspective that nothing Le Prof writes can stand without gross reversion (see backtracking in this article's case when challenged by third party), and the opposing philosophical view that all descriptions, especially the most general, should open articles, regardless of the preponderance of expert opinion (e.g., at "natural product" it was that proteins, nucleic acids, etc. should be mentioned front and center and prominently, even though the preponderance of meaning in the expert literature is that this moniker implies small molecules created by secondary metabolism). As I said, I give up, and especially in this case, I leave it to this whose area of primary expertise it is. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I hadn't gotten back to this either. Boghog does a lot of great work on biochem articles and I doubt he or anyone else has a personal interest in reverting your edits. The recurring theme here seems to be that a Wikipedia article is by design aimed at a very different audience than the expert literature. It's become a bit of a local convention to begin with general statements to help orient readers who may have arrived at the article from very different paths. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does great work, esp. vis-a-vis using a template he designed to improve the uniformity of sourcing. But there is also no gainsaying that he follows me about, and goes to articles he has no or little history with, showing up while I am in the midst of editing, beginning to revert. If it happens again, I will bring you in immediately, so you can see for yourself. He also "owns" the articles he has set for himself, taking care to ensure they do not change much in direction from that which he has set. I gave up at Steroids—all the literature includes ring cleavage forms, and ring expansion forms, but he insists on the intact ring structure definition—and I gave up at Natural products (because, again, he insists on his definition). I can only hope to outlive the man, if I am to make any impact on articles of shared interest, and, these are, unfortunately, most, and so I no longer edit much in my area of expertise (the binding article being yet another departure).
 * As for level of writing, I can only say this. Look a the good articles designated as such in math and chemistry. Many are very technical indeed. There exists a whole further WP edition for young audiences. This was supposed to be the open equivalent of Encycl Britann. It is not. It is, in many cases, hodgepodges of garbage (see the bottom half of the Polyphenol article). And so it will remain, because the flaws are procedural, and there can be no ultimate guarantee of quality in a place where politics and networking and voting determine what is correct. (See the discussions in the Talk section of the Oxygen article, for even worse cases, of my being reverted by amateur chem hobbyists from the NL, who insist that their personal photos of their spark discharge tubes appear in every chemistry article—with no explanation at all, before I took them to task.) If you have patience for it, so be it. I do not, and have tossed my hat in with a better alternative. Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's more likely that Boghog is like a lot of the rest of us and has these articles on his watchlist. Since they aren't edited all that often, it's not hard to notice changes when they do occur. Why not work on an article on a more specific topic where a more technical audience can be assumed? There are plenty of stubs on individual molecules that could use attention, and coverage of experimental techniques in biophysics is patchy.
 * Good luck if you try a different site but I'm just saying, I think you say you're sick of us and are leaving in every third post... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you are fair minded
Have a look here,. Even my non-science work gets slapped, in this case for insisting that the person about whom the article is written, not populate the site with his personal webpage. (And again, being reverted as I worked, by two editors intent on no changes to the article, tagteaming, and then bringing a 3RR complaint after I had given up.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Two things: 1) It's totally normal to reference a subject's own claims about basic biographical information and about his own ideas or positions. 2) I don't have time to read the background here or find the original agreement, but I see that EdJohnston mentioned on your talk page that you agreed to a topic ban from Taleb. That means it's best to disengage on this subject, including with previously uninvolved editors, and spend your time on something else. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More gene edits
I had the lovely experience this evening of heading over to Gene article to address the absence of citations in the Mendelian inheritance section, when I found you'd already added some! Anyway, what I came here to ask was if you'd seen my comment on the talk page. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My question
You answered my question well, and sufficiently for the RfA page. I have one more question but rather for this more private place. Nice to meet you again! - Before, to clarify: you probably don't see the Beethoven close among the requests any more because someone dared. - Now the question: I am late to the mysterious "infobox wars". (I was against infoboxes in 2012 - see Samuel Barber talk - and for them half a year later.) What do you think of this (short) discussion? I enjoyed it, and believe most of the other participants also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Your sanity on the issue is appreciated :) I remember bickering at FAC about infoboxes back to 2006, and following a link on Talk:Samuel Barber led to an archive of a giant argument about them from 2007. I find the persistence of the issue bewildering. The rhetorical style of your conversation is entertaining to read, but the fact that there are seemingly dozens of such things, with no apparent progress in settling the issue, and somehow this all keeps ending up at arbcom, is exhausting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My rhetorical style was copied from Bach ;) - as both others knew well. There are not dozens of those things, and mind the date, almost two years ago it was the last one, at least by me. You may have heard that there was an arbcom case which some believed solved something, while I was disappointed that the arbitrators didn't even look at the issue why it was requested: reverts (!) of operatic infoboxes and others. In short: project opera installed the feature infobox opera, there was some resistance to apply it to existing operas, but by now you can look at some works discussed in the case: Carmen and all of Verdi's works have an infobox, the project is happy and praised as a place of collaboration. - I stay away from even suggesting infoboxes where I know that they are not wanted, but if innocent editors who add them are treated not well (as on Chopin) I can't be silent. - I wonder why the topic is so hot. My reaction if someone added an infobox to one of "my" articles would be: Why not? It helps some people and doesn't take away for the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did miss the date on that - I can see there is a lot of history on this issue to catch up on! Fortunately no one seems to mind infoboxes about proteins :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Siegfried was a playful thing at the end of the arb case, looking in irony on the same, and on its implication that the "Main contributors" decide. (Until then I thought the readers should.) - Talk:Götterdämmerung (a bit before) was more serious, asking biblically "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" (In other words: why not?) - Now look at Lohengrin, without debate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen, - I started Ah! perfido ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, progress on Beethoven! I see he has an infobox now, and a very nice new article - is the aria your next DYK? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I happily take the credit for the infobox which I suggested in the case in 2013 ;) - The one thing I learned is patience. - The aria will be DYK, but I don't know yet if my next. I suggest a lot for others, and there a possibilities in this new thriving effort, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was my next nom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice! It's good to see things that are actually interesting going on the main page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be recruited?
Hi, Opabinia. Could you be convinced to take on a little new XfD work? Admin Martin Hoekstra is AWOL at TfD, and long-time TfD closer Plastikspork is only showing up every 10 to 14 days to close only a handful of TfD discussions. No other admin is closing TfDs right now. Could you be talked into closing a couple of TfDs per day, and I'll see if I can recruit two or three more admins to help on the same basis? I would be happy to help in any way possible, including pointing you in the direction of the relevant guidelines and essays. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I have some time - this weekend I'm doing a little bit of writing and a lot more drinking and barbecueing ;) By any chance is there a script that does the follow-up work of fixing the talk page templates and such, the way closeafd.js does? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudos
This is exactly the kind of common sense analysis of which we need more:. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's too bad this latest dustup happened now; really poorly timed for the advocates of common sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

tmd paper
Matthew Ferguson (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PDF sent! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP
Opa! Hey, I've got a vandalism-only IP user engaged in nefarious activities after warning:. Can you put an appropriate whammy on the address? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ack! Stale by the time I saw it. If I could literally block vandals in my sleep, all these long threads about admin backlogs would be a lot less of a problem ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Year of Science ideas
Thanks. This is exactly the sort of stuff I'm looking for. :) Will be replying there in more detail tomorrow. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Scott V. Edwards
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jennifer Richeson
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Douglas J. Futuyma page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665994483 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F665994483%7CDouglas J. Futuyma%5D%5D Ask for help])

My question [about an AfD]
Hi Opabinia Regalis,

I am writing to you because I was unable to weigh in on the deletion discussion for the Rosemary Rawcliffe page and believe that you were not provided with enough professional filmmaking information in order to make a decision as whether this subject is notable or not.

I see there has been a discussion about regional vs national and it’s impact on notability. Firstly, a regional Emmy is notable. An Emmy award is an Emmy and it is considered one of the most notable 'peer- judged' honors in television. I mention 'peer-judged' to be clear that the judges for these awards are professional filmmakers in the specific field they are judging. For example only working film producers can judge films nominated for production. If you are still unsure about an Emmy’s notability please read this article, it should help you understand what an Emmy is. http://www.documentary.org/feature/emmy-explained-guide-understanding-televisions-top-awards

It is also important to note that Northern California is a very large and thriving community of documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers make up this competitive pool of Emmy contenders who are producing high quality films that are informative and groundbreaking. Rosemary Rawcliffe, who is responsible for the film A Quiet Revolution, had to compete in this pool in order to be awarded with an Emmy.

Secondly, it is not a given that a film is accepted at a film festival and for some film festivals, you must be invited. With that said, in the film community, it is an honor to be accepted and screened at a film festival, especially one as prestigious as the Mill Valley Film Festival—as was the case for this film and this filmmaker.

Let me be clear, there is no dispute that this film has won multiple awards, including an Emmy; has been aired on PBS; screened at reputable universities and included in University curriculums and libraries at Universities such as Stanford University, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, among others.

Please justify why you have deleted this post. Thank you. SeaSalt7 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My job in closing the discussion is to judge and implement the consensus the participants have reached, not to make a decision about the topic's notability. Since this article was initially accepted at AfC and the discussion participants had some question about the Emmy, I'm going to restore this to the draft namespace and you can try to establish notability more clearly before resubmitting it to Articles for Creation. Remember WP:CREATIVE sets the standard for notability of creative professionals: you have to provide independent sources documenting significant attention to or influence by her work. Good luck! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for American Society for Virology
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Neena Schwartz
Thank you for creating this article. I added this article to Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which records LGBT-related contributions to Wikipedia as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles during the month of June, feel free to update this Results page accordingly. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto for David K. Smith and any other articles that I may not have stumbled upon yet! :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks! Also added James Nowick, another chemist. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Collins (immunologist)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What about my pretty little head?
Hey, what about my comments? Aren't they sufficient to get on your list? I feel so neglected.😰Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I knew I was going to miss somebody. Hard to concentrate when you're busy searching for a couch to faint on, after all ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just have to be even more offensive next time. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My Template:Histref closure
Could you re-close this, as it actually makes more sense to delete them, in retrospect? I'd have simply reverted my closure, but I've already orphaned the two templates. sigh I should've just gone to sleep. Alakzi (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The TPS report has the appropriate coversheet now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Antonio Urcelay
Sorry to bother you, but I just was writing up a "keep" vote when it edit-conflicted with your "delete" closure. I found this, this, this, this, this and this, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Please tell me what you think. (Please answer here, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you know, and I thought all those spammy sock-generated business articles were hopeless cases. I'll restore it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Neena Schwartz
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for James Nowick
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes
Opabinia, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ehhhh.... thanks for trying to find a middle ground somewhere in that mess, but I am not really a fan of trying to come up with specific bright-line boundaries as a means of resolving failures of common sense. I've yet to find this supposed plague of navboxes that are full of redlinks, don't fall into a reasonable reading of 'succession' or 'complete set', and - the critical part - are actually, demonstrably causing problems.
 * I gave a couple of examples of biochemistry navboxes with a lot of redlinks; most of these are constructed at least somewhat systematically, though they're unlikely to be "complete", and trimming or deleting them to meet an arbitrary standard would be a total waste of time when the people qualified to do it could be writing the articles in these poorly covered topic areas. Should we delete Oligostilbenoid? It's >50% redlinks. How about Flavono-ellagitannin? Just two bluelinks out of ten. Rotenoid? 3/24! (OK, that one's a little bloated.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks for your lovely note of support at my RfA. I may be a day late and a dollar short, but here I am now. Do with me what you will. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for David K. Smith
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And on the same day (in some time zones, at least) as the US Supreme Court decision. Excellent timing :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha, thanks. Think it'd be an improvement to chew the lint and sculpt the tinfoil? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You said much more elegantly what I brutally called what I think it is, - but Ritchie, the GA is in the making ;) - I remember the last time I was cited to AE, and what you get on Wikipedia if you help a new user with formatting, - I returned the spiral of justice to my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha, I don't think you are ever brutal, :)
 * I knew this had to be a thing. An offline source has informed me that lint makes surprisingly good lunch. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I brutally enforce mercy and shamelessly go for a GA review ;) - will mercifully speak a bit about mercifully asking your victims (breaching restrictions) to revert the edit in question before you subject them to the tortures of go to AE --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Worked, both mercy (before I asked) and review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

your AE statement
Hi -

I'm responding here instead of at the arb request, because I believe you're conflating a few things worth fixing, if nothing else for your own sake. Reaper Eternal is, to be clear, an admin, as well as a checkuser. If he wasn't, he would've been unable to modify Eric's block. In my statement here, I literally hoped Reaper had read Courcelles - a sitting arb's - earlier statement to Adj that any modification of the block would likely result in a desysop. This diff isn't any form of 'haha' at Reaper - it's pointing out that he violated one of arbcom's very few redlines. Very very few people have every overturned an AE block without consensus and have not been desysopped for it. I can see how you can view this diff more negatively, but in the end, it's still just pointing out that Reaper likely will lose his sysop bit over this, and if he is going to do so, he should damn sure know what he is doing. This diff was to RGloucester, not Reaper. RG reverted my action which would have been, as I've described elsewhere productive, and then argued that consensus is needed to overturn AN closes - which just isn't true. At the time, I was operating under the assumption that RG was an admin, because I figured someone else wouldn't have overturned my temporary revert, and should be read in that mind. If RG had in fact been an admin, I think his actions would likely have constituted wheelwarring - and even not as an admin, they're dangerously close to creating the same dangerous result. I would suggest that you may arrive at a different conclusion as to my intentions if you take note that I'd already warned Adj off modifying the block, and although my opinion of him has since changed, really was initially concerned that Reaper might have no idea he was doing something that he will likely lose his advanced privs over. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your note. Given that I've commented elsewhere on this incident and obviously read your comments on the matter, I'm a little at a loss how you'd suspect I didn't know that Reaper was an admin and unblocked Eric. I assumed I must've borked up the diff links somehow, but they look right, so I remain confused at your confusion. Maybe because I emphasized Reaper's explanation rather than the unblock itself? The point I intended to make was, Reaper's closing statement clearly indicated an interpretation of policy that differs from yours, and yet you responded by repeatedly insisting that yours is correct. I do see that my comment looks like singling you out, and I apologize for that; most of the earlier events in this whole mess had already been covered by others, and I didn't think RGloucester's statement really reflected my concerns.


 * Here's why I think your decision to make a fuss over Reaper's unblock was a very bad idea. You are unambiguously involved in this issue. Reaper's actions were clearly intended to serve as a de-escalation of a volatile situation while the obviously inevitable arbcom case got started. Arbcom was already aware of the whole situation and was obviously not going to overlook Reaper's unblock; it was completely unnecessary for you to be the one to take action here. The committee can police its own boundaries. It's not your job to "warn someone off" or repeatedly and publicly predict someone's desysopping (which you then forcefully advocate for in the very first point of your statement) based on your interpretation of a policy that obviously has a wide variety of interpretations in the community. (You keep emphasizing your certainty that this was a desysoppable action, even though there is clearly a range of opinions on whether there was consensus against the block, what a consensus warranting overturning might look like, etc. etc.) At best, it's an overly rigid application of policy to an obviously unusual situation; at worst, it has the appearance of pushing your policy interpretation in order to get your way on the originating issue of Eric's block. Going on to add RGloucester to the list of parties simply for reverting you on a noticeboard does not weaken that impression.


 * To be clear, I'm not looking for you (or anyone involved) to be sanctioned for this. I do want people to be more aware of the context of the actions they take, even when those actions are (or at least appear to be) permitted or even encouraged by the rules. Everyone who escalated this situation, yourself included, had the option to do nothing and chose instead to take a permissible but not obligatory bureaucratic action that resulted in more unnecessary drama. I want people to stop doing that, and I especially want people who are involved in gender-gap issues to stop doing that, because it perpetuates the impression that addressing gender-gap issues comes with bureaucracy and rules-mongering and drama-laden overreactions. You've done a lot of good in this area but in this case, ironically, I think you were being ineffective as an ally. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:WWE Programming
Reminder: you closed the discussion as delete but haven't yet deleted. Regards, Bazj (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs to be orphaned before it can be deleted, Bazj. I'll do that now. Alakzi (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I listed it in the holding cell because it had too many transclusions to orphan manually. It can be deleted once that's done. Thanks ! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All done. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, deleted now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks to . I'd overlooked the transclusions and had never heard of the holding cell. Thanks for the education. Bazj (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you . ..
. . . for taking on more TfD closings than I'm sure you ever imagined upon your return as an admin. You're a good Cambrian critter, Opabinia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not hard to beat my prediction of zero :) Thanks, glad to help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Maasella edwardsi
I thought I would explain here rather than on the DYK nomination page the background to the Maasella edwardsi article. Dr. Blofeld encouraged me to join the Intertranswiki project and contribute to ten articles that had Spanish language articles but no English language equivalent. He suggested "trees" as the topic but I chose "corals" instead. I really prefer to create articles on my own but in this case he started Maasella edwardsi and quoted a book source for which I only had limited snippet view. The depth range, for example, came from the Spanish language article and not from the source he gave. I expanded the article but thought it somewhat unsatisfactory, and would not have nominated it for DYK except for the fact that he had also been involved and I thought he might want me to do so.

When I first found the Özalp source I had access to the full text and read the whole article, but on further visits, I could only access the abstract and lost a lot of good information. I think the 1990 figure came from my perhaps faulty recollection of the full content, or I may have read it elsewhere, so I have removed it. I have altered the text of the article, added another source and proposed another hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I hadn't seen that project. Do you have the paper now or do you want a copy? For some reason I have off-campus access to that one but not the one about the natural products, which is the opposite of what we should be interested in... Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer, but I will be happy to leave the article as it is. Sure, there is more that could be added, but there are myriad other species that have no article at all. I have access to JSTOR and can find plenty to write about through that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Maybe I haven't argued my point properly: The purpose of the template space is so information on-templates can be used in multiple places. I doesn't get any simpler than this. Think of the wikiproject templates. They are used on multiple talk pages so readers can know that the article falls under the scope of the particular wikiproject.

If an annotated image is used on multiple articles it SHOULD be in templatespace so that editors can make a change to one page, the template, so multiple pages will reflect the page. Having a template which isn't used or not likely to be used on other pages actually obfuscates the editing process especially so when the information related to the article; the template should be "orphaned", transferred to the article, then deleted. And if editors want to discuss the previously orphaned template they should do it on the article page since the template is deeply related to the article content.

Now will you tell me those examples you have in mind?96.52.0.249 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, I'm just not particularly interested in the teleology of templates. You seem to have plenty of good work to do on other things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

RFC/N discussion of the username "NotAnOmbudsman"
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of. You are invited to comment on the discussion here. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesicle. 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) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm the problematic one
Well, I think I've finally gone insane in this place. In the meantime, DiscSquare is back at it. Alakzi (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (watching:) As I pointed out elsewhere (and wouldn't mind comment), the first thing you have to do if you think a user causes a problem is to speak to the user (even if it seems hopeless). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a tale of how a clueless admin can cause real damage. DiscSquare has been enabled by Swarm since March. When approached by DiscSquare, Swarm, who ought to have taken the time to read the article to verify that my deletions had been proper and explain WP:NPOV to the new editor, rattled on about how my edits weren't "too disruptive". Swarm semi-protected the article citing BLP violations (there was nothing of the sort - on the contrary, IP edits had been constructive), validating DiscSquare's continued disruption. They insisted on removing a POV tag and reliably-sourced content, describing it as vandalism. There is little I could've said or done that would've made a difference. Alakzi (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * puts it better than I'd ever have the patience to here. Alakzi (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A, I do understand your frustration; that's why I've gotten involved with this topic in which I have no personal interest. The article was a mess, and the other editor was clearly editing to present a very biased view of the subject's criminal convictions, indictments and alleged activities.  But, as I already reminded you on my talk page, "you can't reasonably expect help from the sheriff when you tell the deputy to fuck himself."  (Please pardon my vulgar metaphor, Opabinia.)  You're smarter than that, chief: honey catches more flies than vinegar, especially when the flies are volunteers working in their free time.  That said, let's keep doing what we're doing, by finding and linking all of the relevant reliable sources regarding the criminal convictions, appeals, indictments, extraditions, etc., on the article talk page.  Time to build your case so that any drive-by administrator can absorb the basic facts in 5 to 10 minutes, instead of permitting the other editor to hopelessly confuse the legal realities.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course; I could use a break to regain my perspective. Alakzi (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's settled: I'm Hitler. Alakzi (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not settled for me. An admin comparing ananed editor that way seems a problem I don't know to solve. - I don't follow you around, tell me what you did? I saw an ANI notice to block someone, and substantial edit-warring on an article, but that may be only the tip of an iceberg??? Perhaps let our lawyer focus efforts on "collaborative editing". - We had an article pruned, successfully so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's not worth your time, Gerda. We've got the article back on track with the (enormous) help of Dirtlawyer1, and that's what really matters. Alakzi (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, I have been offline all day, just now started to respond, and edit-conflicted with this comment that a resolution is in sight. How very un-Hitler-like ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW - the other half of Godwin's law is that the thread is over when Hitler shows up ;) Swarm's comments are way over the top, but he's asked that you not post on his talk page, so it'd be a good idea to strike your subsequent post. It's already far too easy to overlook a problem only visible on review of months' worth of edit history on an obscure topic when there's 'incivility' to point at and complain about; no need to add extra distractions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, wise thinker. Wish you would have been around when we had the infoboxes case, or before - to not even have one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what purpose striking it would serve, but he's already reverted me. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And, since I can no longer respond on his talk page, I should say that I was referring to his March protection of the page. His latest protection may be justifiable on WP:NPOV grounds, but not on WP:BLP. I do not consider it to be uncivil to point out to an admin that they're incompetent at it. If you'd care to look at his history, it is riddled with questionable administrative actions. He deleted a template before it could be replaced, and did not respond to requests to restore if for three days. He closed a TfD discussion which was an obvious merge as no consensus. He revoked the TPA of a user he blocked because the blocked user dared him to. Is there such a thing as restraint? Alakzi (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Justice suffered in great need." - I ask you something difficult: don't think of him, he doesn't deserve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see I'm late as usual, and Dirtlawyer and Gerda are much more diplomatic than me. (I am so glad I wasn't here for the infobox wars....) Moot point I suppose, but the purpose was deescalation - once someone's told you to fuck off, they're clearly not listening, so what's the purpose of continuing the conversation? It's a waste of energy. As for your SPA, this seems like a WP:CRUSH case and it looks like Dirtlawyer has the right idea for building up the evidence for it. I'm going to take Gerda's advice and not comment right now on Swarm's other decisions :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ;) - Infobox wars: what is that. Did you see a battle? - Some saw me as the problematic one but I don't know where they looked, - they had to SOMEthing, I understand that much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd known about that essay earlier. Alakzi (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Felt exactly the same about this pearl, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus. 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) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Zena Werb
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Good job in getting rid of the embarrassing references in the Infectious causes of cancer
Thanks for your work on the above mentioned article. I've been so busy working on the individual articles related to this broad topic, that I haven't had the time to do what you have done so well. Keep up the good work. I can't believe that there were references from 1962!
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's one of those cases that looks well-referenced if you aren't paying attention, and then suddenly you realize we've been claiming since October that humans injected with Sv40-treated cells get tumors. Damn anti-vaxxers. Thanks for your work on this topic; I hadn't realized just how deep some of these rabbit holes went! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a search term that we could use to scan wikipedia to locate the same kinda stuff?
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not that I can think of offhand... I wouldn't be surprised to find more SV40-related nonsense out there though. If the Cochrane bot takes off, we could imagine using a hidden tracking category to monitor articles referencing obvious crap sources without the bickering associated with listing those sources in a guideline somewhere. (Didn't someone make a list awhile back of medical articles containing Daily Mail links?) Doesn't help with the problem of misrepresenting the source, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing Tfd's
You closed four Tfd's today but didn't edit the templates or their talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, thanks for letting me know! I got interrupted IRL and forgot what I was doing, apparently. Fixed now. I really should get around to adapting the closeafd script to automate this eventually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profenofos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl. 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) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi (?)
Hey, Opabinia. Do you know what's going on with Alakzi? He deleted his user page and archived all talk page threads yesterday, and has been MIA since then. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I doubt I know anything you don't... probably related to the TV people being really attached to their technicolor dreamcoat infoboxes. You probably saw Template talk:Infobox television season and related threads elsewhere that I lost track of, with a bunch of sniping and edit-warring accusations and whatnot (see esp. these posts). You might have some useful comments on the design/color issues, if you have a whole lot of otherwise unallocated patience. I wish I'd noticed earlier, but I wasn't paying a lot of attention to this dispute until I saw one of the other participants behaving the same way in an unrelated context yesterday, which you've probably also already seen. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I had not read those threads before now, but I did find his last edits to the template talk pages and they were oozing with frustration. While I work a fair amount with him, he has had a healthy wiki-life outside of my project-space, and I have tried not to monopolize his talents.  I could put Alakzi to work full-time on my various projects, and no-one would ever say an unkind word to him.  But that's too much to ask.  I went through a 10 or 12-month period back in 2013–14, when I was feeling unappreciated, frustrated with recurring on-wiki infighting and silliness, and needed to spend more time on my career as the economy had finally recovered.  When I started editing again regularly, I did so with a different perspective, recognizing the limitations of what I could fix and what I did not have the time to undertake.  Even so, I spend too darn much time fixing stuff that should not require manual editing (e.g., proper transfer of metadata from Persondata to Wikidata), or undertaking improvements of things like infobox templates that impact my areas of interest without the coding skills to implement them without assistance.  These types of conflicts over technical details that Alakzi has recently encountered would be much more efficiently and rationally resolved with a top-down management, rather than an ever-changing bottom-up consensus management, but I don't see that changing, even on a limited basis, anytime soon.


 * BTW, why do the TV people want different color infoboxes for different seasons of the same TV series? I would expect they would want the color scheme for the season infoboxes for a particular series to match!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The TV people are these people ;) Sounds like the underlying problem is 'most of the TV editors are going to screw this up and will freak out if told they can't do it at all', which as a justification for poor accessibility sounds like a Somebody Else's Problem field.
 * I entirely understand why someone might take a break for a week or a few months or eight years. (Incidentally, I still have barely touched that one little cluster of articles I was going to fix real quick this winter, without getting dragged into anything else....) Sometimes there is just not enough time to spend some of it 'volunteering' to be treated poorly. And I've never understood the dynamic here where it's somehow acceptable to be extra rude to people who do mostly technical work. I guess consensus is better than bad top-down management, but conflicts about technical details are arguably even more vulnerable to the WP:RANDY problem than most article-related disputes, and it's even harder for outside observers to figure out how to mediate. Anyway, I hope a few days off helps. People willing and able to do that kind of work here aren't that common, and Alakzi is a perceptive person who's good to have around in project-space too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Warnowiid is not yet an article
I came across a mention of a dinoflagellate with an eye, as denoted in the popular press, but apparently the better name is ocelloid  —("Molecular phylogeny of ocelloid-bearing dinoflagellates (Warnowiaceae) as inferred from SSU and LSU rDNA sequences.") and wish to mention it in [[visual system], but I am apprehensive that the naked mention will leave it subject to reversion. Apparently the lens of this warnowiid's eye is formed from some of its mitochondria, and its eye even has a retina composed of plastids. If I craft a sentence for the visual system article with a red-link this micro-organism, would this be helpful to your interests? What else might I do, as I do not have a biology background. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But Ocelloid is an article, which I will link to in my sentence for visual system. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 00:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, very interesting! Sigh... we have so many microorganism redlinks. Sure, add a sentence or two to a relevant article. I see we have a one-sentence stub on Polykrikos kofoidii but nothing for polykrikoid/Polykrikos either. I don't know if I'll have much time to fill it in till this weekend, but as you can see from the P. kofoidii article, very short stubs are just fine if you want to start one. I guess that depends on how much you care about meeting the DYK deadline :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is an article now, thanks for the inspiration! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thank you. Probably it's a DYK by now. I'll check. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 07:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's my first nomination. One of my articles made it to DYK main page, but another editor did the DYK, so I was innocent of the mechanics. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 07:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Colors for Template:Infobox television season
Hey, Opabinia. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season. The discussion could use another rational, objective, third-party opinion from a reasonable arthropod or two. It's past time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a logical compromise to resolve what appears to be an unnecessarily prolonged dispute. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will take a look later when I'm not on a tablet - though the whole five compound eyes thing might make me a minority :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . . . or a very interesting test case under the Americans With Disabilities Act. I also assume WMF policy prohibits species-based discrimination, too.  And it's only a matter of time until the Supremes declare evolution-challenged persons a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment.  I, on the other hand, am a troglodyte, and love my seagoing arthropods with melted butter.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Evolution-challenged?? Excuse me, I think you mean differently evolved. I'm working on lobbying for the Americans With Extinction Act. I mean, bottom-feeding invertebrates should be pretty popular with Congress, right? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just got to 'consensus amen'. LOL. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL was not my reaction when I read "physically sick" and remembered the times I was. (You should not mention that on Wikipedia, - what happened last time was this. I AGF, it was probably meant as help.) - Sunday sermon on my talk, look for "missing spine and thoughts", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a funny phrase in an otherwise un-funny situation. Well, actually I think the idea that every single season of every single TV show ever should get its own special snowflake color scheme is pretty funny, but de gustibus non disputandum and all :) Consensus is inchoate until blessed into existence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we sure the TV editors aren't gonna walk out en masse, despite the thirty-day grace period? It is a legitimate concern. Alakzi (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming everyone agrees to it, some (most?) of the issues will be fixed while it's still in people's minds. When the switch gets flipped in a month someone else will probably complain, but then you can tell them "Look, this was discussed a month ago, we posted messages all over the place, we did everything short of staple a note to your forehead about it; you snooze, you lose." Ideally this occurs while people who are familiar with the situation but not actively involved are around to respond to the complaints. Most likely no one will actually say "I hadn't thought about this problem; thank you for pointing it out," but they should.
 * As it happens, I hadn't thought about this problem, so thank you for pointing it out :) I don't suppose you'd have any ideas about colors in the taxonomy infoboxes? I intentionally suggested minimal changes - which do have some issues - but if we can overhaul the whole thing, then we need 11-13 colors with 7:1 contrast ratios against links, that are also distinguishable from each other. And at least two have to be green. And the parent template has 280K transclusions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to keep the colours as they are and use them in dividers between sections of the taxobox. The new amoebozoa is pretty much indistinguishable from excavates and archaea, for instance; I agree with Choess. Alakzi (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
Please pardon my inadvertent misclick on this so-called "smart" phone. Especial apologies because in that edit, you were citing me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, that rollback link is like a thumb magnet on a phone :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Need a little help
Opabinia and Bagumba, I need some help here:. I've got at least one editor who is determined to return this discussion to a free-fire zone of provocative rhetoric and baiting, and he's not inclined to listen to my gentle warnings. I would be grateful if you would help dial this back before it gets out of hand again. It's clearly counter-productive to the stated goal. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Snark reigns supreme, but none of that is "baiting". Not that you would appreciate my commenting here. Alakzi (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A, "snark" is not helpful, and baiting is bad thing, whether you or someone else is the target. BTW, it would be a kind gesture if you offered to help AussieLegend with his signature's contrast issues.  I believe a very thin black silhouette on the yellow "Legend" would cure the yellow-offwhite contrast problem.  I'm pretty sure you would know how to code this.  Kindness builds relationships, relationships build trust, and trust fosters cooperation and compromise.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he'd have known how to do it, but anyway. Alakzi (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not have known how to do it, but I'm just a writer.   Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While snark is certainly not helpful, it is not quite as toxic as the repeated attempts to strong-arm other participants, which culminated in my being blocked by a megalomaniac on a power trip and his subsequent unblock bargaining. Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's water under the bridge now, A; gotta let it go. Recognize that it's the primary reason I'm involved here; nobody is going to get blocked if I can help it.  And, yes, I did read the whole exchange: "megalomaniac" is a little strong.  Engaging in a rhetorical slap-fight with an intervening admin buys you nothing.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. He asks me to explain "what I did wrong"; in response, I elaborate on why I do not believe to have misused or abused AWB; and he retorts, "I think you know what you did wrong". Others have argued that I give off "a bad vibe", or that I should not have been unblocked due to my short tenure. Just what is wrong with this place? Alakzi (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find it right now, but there's an essay somewhere about how much Wikipedians love to extract apologies from people who clearly aren't sorry. The pattern of prioritizing management of tone over content is a long-standing community pathology that goes way beyond one new admin attempting to be helpful, doing it kind of ham-fistedly, and attracting commentary from ANI enthusiasts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Last time I brought that up, the conversation spiralled into a debate on the definition of anarchism. Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters but you give me good vibes, and I hope will stay doing that, - please don't change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Gerda :)
 * Ha. That thread is painful. I can't decide if ANI is a better example of the authoritarianism that anarchism is supposed to be the solution to, or the screaming mob it's supposed to turn into. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The climate and quality of comments at ANI could be significantly improved by imposing monthly and yearly ANI edit quotas on individual editors. There are too many users who make frequent ANI contributions that are filled with snark, vitriol, payback, and/or comments uninformed by an in-depth reading of policy and guidelines -- not to mention the generally unkind treatment often received from participating administrators.  I avoided ANI like the plague the first three years I was on Wikipedia, and I continue to do my best to eschew commenting there except when absolutely necessary.  ANI has amply earned its "torches and pitchforks" sobriquet.  The only way to "win" the ANI game is not to play.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * same for arbitration, - avoid by all means --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking every dramaboard post counts as -10 edits and if you have a negative edit count you're blocked from everything but mainspace. But whatever works :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . . . or better yet: blocked from editing everything except mainspace talk pages. That'll teach'em to get along with their fellow editors.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the "grudging keep" ...
I appreciate your vote to keep Skintern, despite your criticisms, which I'd like to respond to.

I can understand how it might seem a little long ... my philosophy is that it's better to write perhaps too much and cut what you don't need than too little and have to add to it. Also, I needed enough text to offset the images so they fit nicely into the article. And lastly, it was somewhat defensive ... sometimes people will use thin coverage of a subject as an argument for non-notability and hence, deletion.

As for the quotes ... while I am generally leery of the idea that articles should keep quotes to a minimum (I could give you my reasons for that later), I admit that while I was writing it it did occur to me that it might read as too quotey (or, rather, that the quotes, specifically those describing the clothes worn by those young women referred to as "skinterns"), are repetitive. Maybe so, but I wanted to make sure that readers understand that the women quoted were talking about the same phenomenon.

I am currently at Wikimania in Mexico City so my time and capacity to address any more specific articulation of your criticisms is limited until I get back home next Wednesday. But do not let that discourage you from responding before then if you wish. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly grumpy about the subject, not the article ;) There are definitely too many quotes though - I see the point but it collectively produces that 'padded-out term paper' effect. I'd also lose the top image. Obviously this is a bad place for a picture of an identifiable person, but a woman's body with her head cut off is problematic in its own way. That's also a pretty extreme example and gives the underlying concept a bit more apparent legitimacy than it warrants. (And, well, look at the other images the uploader thought might be useful for an educational project.) Nobody in American politics or white-collar professional life thinks crop tops and microminis are good officewear, but women can be judged as too sexy/slutty/skintern-y for all kinds of minor and subjective sartorial sins. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of thought some of it was from the distaste you made clear you had for the subject, its notability notwithstanding. Re the quotes, I may well trim them up sometime after I get home from Mexico later this week, now that the likelihood of deletion is past. I'm not that satisfied with the picture either; as I think I may have said on the talk page thread that it was the best of a plenitude of weak options. Commons has a well-populated category of images of women dressed that way, but almost none of them are in an office setting or of women whose dress would otherwise seem remotely professional (most are of porn stars photographed by adoring fanboys at conventions, it seems. None of those would be appropriate or relevant to use in this context. It's unfortunate that she's headless, I agrer (symbolic implications aside, it's aesthetically terriible) but, as I said on the talk page, that eliminates the personality rights issue that would otherwise constrain use of an image in this particular article (since it's about a derogatory term). Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That picture, in the context of the uploader's other offerings, is clearly amateur homegrown fetish stuff. Including such an extreme example gives the reader the impression that (a significant number of) the young women being described this way are intentionally dressing "provocatively" to get attention or manipulate those around them, but it's backfiring. The sources mostly make clear that this is more a matter of generational differences in fashion and/or professional socialization. Ideal would be a representative set of clothes on a mannequin. Commons really is surprisingly deficient in women's clothing and fashion, but IMO the current illustration is worse than nothing. People can get more representative pictures from google image search. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of them are free ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean that the interested reader is better served by non-Wikipedia sources for this at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you say that, it occurs to me that we could probably use the external media template to link to an image (if, presumably, one exists—I think I did look once and wasn't exactly much more encouraged than I was by the Commons pickings ... mostly porn-ish there, too). That's my favorite workaround for media I absolutely can't find a fair-use justification for. But I had never thought of doing it for a lead image. Ultimately I still see the best solution as what I proposed on the talk page: a photo illustration (or, more honestly, a staged photo), using a model or models (perhaps a younger skintern making copies while some more appropriately dressed older woman looks on disapprovingly?) who have been made fully aware of how the image will be used before the picture is taken. But, again, all this will have to wait until I get back from Mexico City the day after tomorrow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How's this? (Picture linked to here) Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely better, thanks for following up! I suppose someone might complain eventually about the source as 'user-generated', but meh. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Ocelloid
 * added a link pointing to Photoreceptor


 * Warnowiaceae
 * added a link pointing to Morphological

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

W-screen's bouncy ball
The template W-screen has a "static" parameter for users who prefer not to add the bouncy ball, and it's the default setting for Twinkle users, so no-one is likely to add the bouncy ball unless they positively choose to do so. I myself prefer to add it, and have reverted your change to the template. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_36. I find it a friendly, welcoming, addition to a page. Pam D  10:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right that I didn't notice there was a static parameter; it occurred to me to do something about this template after closing this TfD about a different animated welcome template.
 * But no, welcome templates (and user talk templates in general) should not be animated. You might find it friendly and welcoming, but you have no idea if the recipient finds it a headache-inducing distraction. We should not be inflicting infinitely looping animations on new editors who don't know how to remove them (or even if they're allowed to). WP:ACCESS is mostly written with articles in mind, but applies equally well to other areas of the project and especially to communications with new users. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Murine polyomavirus
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments like this one that Sitush posted on the talk page
Er.. I think you probably meant to mention the comments that Liz posted on Sitush's talkpage? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Sitush posted a link on the RfA talk page, to Liz's posting on Sitush's talk page... and I need more coffee. Thanks, clarified. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that talk page, sorry. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Closers
Not a problem. I like to be super-careful to be clear when I do these things. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)