User talk:Selery

You can add that list from Request edit with:   

Welcome!
I've been editing as an IP but maybe it's time to create an account. Please be nice to me. Selery (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

edit References to Pseudoscience Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
Query to the scientific community:

To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science? 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

Selery, P>S> 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Goble (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Not that I can think of. (2) I'm not sure. What good do you think this will do? You can't cite personal communications here. Selery (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hansel and Gretel in 3D
Hi Selery. You recently moved Hansel and Gretel in 3D out of the incubator due to this bit of news http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/paramount-schedules-hansel-mgm-co-financing/. However this is about a completely different movie: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Of course this is confusing since the latter happens to be a 3D film featuring Hansel and Gretel! As far as I can tell the Hansel and Gretel in 3D project is dead and I've failed to see any recent news about it. It should go back to the incubator. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links!
Hey thanks for leaving | those links on my talk page, Selery -- I had not seen any of those studies before, and I found them interesting. And, I was surprised to see that motivation crowding theory is just a stub -- if you care about that topic you should try to find time to fix up the article. Or maybe I will try :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Selery,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting newbies
It can be a tough call. I saw what I perceived to be NPOV violations too. But no, I didn't think it was worth spending the time to explain in more detail. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded on the subject due to a pesky user who was blocked in this arena after causing much POV disruption. Jesanj (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for appreciating my work on the Costa Concordia disaster map!

Cheers, Jahn J. J. Hornung (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And my thanks extent to Selery for being a long-standing and valuable contributor to Costa Concordia Disaster! SteveO1951 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Costa Concordia disaster
Since you insist on including that phrase but neglect to discuss on the talk page, I am requesting your input at Talk:Costa Concordia disaster. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:EAR, then WP:DRN at WP:3O?
Hey, Selery, I was just wondering about your recent edits at WP:3O. You made a change that mentioned WP:EAR, and then changed it to instead reference WP:DRN. Not that I have any problem with the page as it now stands, but I just thought it was weird; if they hadn't been tagged with the same username, I would've thought they were edits from two different people! No big deal at all, I was just curious what you meant by it. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about DRN until someone asked me "What's 3O for more than two disputants?" and it took me forever to remember EAR. So I wanted to make it easier. But in the process I learned about DRN which is new and where disputes that would have earlier gone to EAR should go. Sorry for the confusion. Selery (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool, just wondering :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA
Thanks for the template on my talk page, but I don't see any link to ongoing discussions on this topic. A bit surprising, to say the least. Deb (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's page
Hi, I was wondering why you partially undid Phillipe's archiving of Sue Gardner's talk page? If it was done by mistake, please correct the edit. Thanks! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 22:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to continue this conversation. The section also has unresolved questions about declines in the numbers of admins and editors which haven't been answered. Selery (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you also reinstated a whole bunch of other stuff that's been moved to the archive and should be gone from the user page, as far as I can see. Could you please fix this? Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which parts? It's all about whether admins leaving causes editors leaving or vice-versa. Selery (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case please disregard my message. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Plainlist
was unhelpful. plainlist is the appropriate structure for such things. Alarbus (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's two months old, relatively bloated, confusing to newbies, and entirely unnecessary. Selery (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Two months? The thing sank less than two weeks ago. Anyway, the plainlist template is for proper semantics and is entirely appropriate. Alarbus (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think she's talking about the template, actually. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. plainlist is a successor to ubl which has more legs. The difference is that plainlist uses a more intuitive syntax (Help:List) and has quite a bit less preprocessing overhead. Those usages are lists and this is how to include lists in things such as infoboxes. Alarbus (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fox News Channel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fox News Channel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

SOPA songs
This is much-belated. I replied to you here but never alerted you.

You said there were other songs. I listed the two you'd noted to the new home of the "big list" here. One does have to register again to contribute to Wikimedia, there, but I did it and it wasn't so bad, would encourage you to too, if you're inclined.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupy Marines
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupy Marines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea!
Thanks for doing this! SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
Per checkuser evidence, you have been indefinitely blocked for harassment related to anti-GNAA activity. The e-mails sent by your account have been received by the Arbitration Committee, and therefore appeal of this block (due to the private evidence involved) must only be by e-mail to that committee. AGK [•] 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Awk! ... Can't even find which GNAA (in a quickie search) ... we speak of, here. ... The "full log" doesn't say much either; reference to "private evidence" ... I can appreciate; ... am sorry to hear of the whole thing (see above for my recent interaction with user). ... May poke around further. Call this a tightly proscribed public show of support for the user. Am certainly willing to take comments FWIW. Swliv (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's Gay Nigger Association of America, and this appears to be a trolling account of that organisation - or alternatively, a genuinely anti-GNAA individual that has created multiple accounts to attack that organisation. In either case, he is abusing multiple accounts, which is so disruptive I had no option but to block. I hope this clarifies the situation. Regards, AGK  [•] 23:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am most certainly not part of GNAA:  www.gnaa.eu/wiki/pr/2012-01-24-gnaa-brony  -- Those who coddle them should be ashamed of themselves for the predictable results. By indefinitely blocking me for this, I have become more powerful against them than you can possibly imagine. I swear by the beard of Ward Cunningham that in no more than one month's time, the GNAA article will be permanently deleted, in process. See you in July. Selery (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "See you in July": is that a threat, Selery? AGK  [•] 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course not. I often attend Foundation events and I will enjoy the opportunity to discuss this matter face to face. Do you ask because the shame of coddling racist trolls makes you feel threatened by someone who is willing to do something about them? Selery (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I take as much pride in blocking people who use Wikipedia for their own internet evangelism as I do in blocking abusive trolls. AGK  [•] 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have amended or redacted my comment for a second time, which is unacceptable. I would ordinarily have blocked you for disruption, but as that is not possible, I have revoked your talk page access instead. When you're ready to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a social experiment or venue for your crusade, submit a request for unblock. AGK  [•] 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whew! Well, I .... Well, I note that AGK's assertion of "several accounts" was not rebutted; nor was the "anti-GNAA ... evangelism". My inclination to accept the blockage is more settled; though my good experience with User:Selery on a for-now-forgotten unrelated matter still holds in. How about a blog, Selery? That would maybe seem a better (and, now, available) route for formulating and expressing your opinions. ... I can appreciate AGK's wariness in the face of "swear", "[s]ee you", "beard of [a real, unexplained person dragged in]", bold face (at least not all caps; thanks for that; I believe I've only been moved to italics -- maybe in excess ...). We're all volunteers here in a community service project, no?


 * I value greatly the totality of this exchange, as a fully transparent "backstory" on a range of issues fundamental to the production and maintenance of a ... ... credibility-seeking (and -deserving, I believe) reference source. First I was stunned to see Selery able to join in (while blocked); then the escalation toward renewed breakdown; power exercised; communication lost ... in part. On (I hope) we go, all, in peace, productively, in the ways we find.


 * Unless otherwise dissuaded (and if it's possible, Selery), I would be glad to accept a blog address on my talk page and post it here. Cheers, all. Swliv (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I mentiond you here. Cardamon (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MakaniLogoHCW.png)
Thanks for uploading File:MakaniLogoHCW.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)