User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 53

Adoption
Hi Steven! I'm Mach, i've read your profile on the adopt-a-user's adoptee's area and i'm wondering you would like to adopt me? --MachKushayt c 12:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there - sure! Would love to. I'm in a similar timezone to you (east coast of Australia) but it's getting late here. How about you tell me a little bit about yourself, your interests, what you hope to learn from the adoption process and what you hope to do on Wikipedia. I'll start. I'm Steve, I've been editing Wikipedia for around five years, a lot of what I do on Wikipedia revolves around resolving conflict between other users but I also do some cleanup work and other bits and pieces. Outside of Wikipedia, I like to play video games. Tell me about you (we will get stuck into things tomorrow). Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC
 * My real name is Ahmad Kushay, i enjoy playing video games,reading, and studying about everything, although my primary interests are math,chemistry,physics,and politics. I joined wikipedia because i find the idea of volunteering to share knowledge is interesting, i want to make myself usefull to other people. I hope to learn many things from the adoption process, such as wiki markups, wikipedia policy and guidelines, how to deal with vandalism,etc.. --MachKushayt c 13:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's really great. Okay, I've started up an adoption lessons page for you which is located at this page. Generally, we start of with a quick review of some basic policies. Take a read over this page, and in your own words, briefly explain to me (a paragraph or so is enough) what you've learned. It's not important to know all the policies off by heart, but having a basic understanding of what they mean is very useful. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Let's get going! :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry i've replied your message now. I'm busy with school stuffs. Okay, so here's what i've learned :


 * You must be bold in editing wikipedia, but you must also use common sense at the same time.
 * Sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~) which will insert your signature and the time you commented, but do not insert signatures when editing an article.
 * Use edit summary every time you make an edit. This will allow another users to know what have you edited.
 * Do not vandalise, undo another user's edit without discussion,use bad words when discussing, insert my own thought/opinion in an article, and use wikipedia as a place for advertisement.
 * Always insert citations from reliable sources, and
 * Always assume good faith to another users. --MachKushayt c 02:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's really good and shows you understood it all. How have things been going on Wikipedia for you lately? Are you ready to do another lesson? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can adjust to my daily activities now. And yes, i'm ready for another lesson. What lesson is up next? --MachKushayt c 13:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can pick from the lessons available...maybe try the vandalism one? Steven Zhang (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
I'm currently looking for an experienced editor to adopt me. Would you be OK with adopting me for the duration of my conditional unblock, which is for 6 months? my Time Zone is GMT +12 (New Zealand Time).-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm not too familiar with the terms of your unblock, so I'm going to have a chat with Kudpung and Worm That Turned about the circumstances, but I'd definitely be willing. Let me get back to you. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN
How's the restructure coming? I noticed you said 30 minutes, but that was four hours ago. Need any help? the one  sean  04:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got a bit of a bug with the code I am trying to fix - it should not take me much longer. :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN fix
Hey Steven,

I noticed there's some issues with the subpages. It seems to be to do with the heading depth (aka how many ='s there are). I've removed some levels and it seems to be working. Just an FYI. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What issues are you seeing? I can't see any on my end? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem to be ok now but before the TOC looked like:

1 Current disputes 1.1 Battle of Kursk 1.1.1 Opening comments by Gunbirddriver 1.1.2 Opening comments by Binksternet 1.1.3 Opening comments by Sturmvogel 66 1.1.4 Discussion 1.1.4.1 Morgellons 1.2.4.1.1 4 July 2013 1.2.4.1.2 Opening comments by Erythema 1.2.4.1.3 Opening comments by Drgao

and so on. When I previewed adding another in the depth got deeper. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reformatted the second original thread initially before I did the first. All good now :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! Let me know if you need a hand doing anything but I'll let you get on with it for now :) Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you mention it, I do need a hand with something! Because the disputes will now be subpaged, the existing ones we are sub paging are still open. Are you able to notify the parties in the disputes that the disputes have been subpaged as part of the rearrangement, and that to watch list the specific page? (and give them a general reminder about the dispute in general). That'd be a big help! Thanks in advance :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll put a short notice on their talk pages informing them of the change. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. All open DRN cases have now been subpaged and re-added to DRN, so you should be good to go. Thanks again :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened to "Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship..."? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to put in a line a.k.a. at the end of each dispute just to seperate them a bit more. Currently one stops and another just sort of starts Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's done. Nice pick up :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you help out?
I don't know what I'm doing with [] so it can get listed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, (sorry Steven, bit of a ninja steal here) DRN is right in the middle of a big revamp where we're moving to individual subpages. The bot which posts the pages to the main DRN page is currently offline while the work is taking place. Don't worry, it'll be listed manually soon! Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the robot that manages DRN is offline for a few hours, so at present I am listing the manually (and have done so) but it will all be back to normal soon. Kind regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Scholars and Gentlemen, Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Help
Hello, I saw your name on the list of editors willing to offer assistance. I am new to Wikipedia and I was trying to add a source to an article about the Burzynski Clinic. I noticed in the first paragraph that the definition of "antineoplaston" on that page was incorrect so I tried to add the definition from the American Cancer Society. It was deleted, so I asked on the Talk page if someone could find a reference for the current definition, but no one has added one, but they won't let me change it.I have written extensively on the Talk page under "Editing and adding sourced material." I tried to add about four entries to the page, but every time i did it was deleted. I tried to post on the Dispute Resolution board, but two of the editors wanted to resolve the issue on the Talk page, so it was closed. Is there anything I can do at this point? I was making very minor changes on the page. I appreciate your help! Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DR/N template
Could you do a manual update to the template or is that something we are just waiting for the bot to go online for. I thought I saw some discussion that this would require manual updating until the bot functions with the new changes. If you could do that for us once we could emulate what you did in the near future until things are running smoothly? Or is this something we shouldn't mess with to keep from breaking any new functions the bot needs to recognize?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, the template is all the bot. I'm just waiting for TheEarwig to flip the switch. I understand he's a little busy at the moment but it should only be another couple of days for the time being. I'm keeping a closer eye on DRN than normal as I want the transition to be as smooth as possible. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any ETA on the bot? As the subpage list gets longer it become harder to pick out the new ones. I don't suppose there's any way to sort that list by page creation date? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we're still waiting on Earwig. If i hear nothing from them by this time tomorrow, I will have to investigate getting a temporary bot to do some of the work. Cheers, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

R.A. The Rugged Man
Thanks for the changes you made. I removed some uncited harsh criticism from the lead. The alleged surname is still scattered around the article, so if you have time, could you change those to the stage name please? I would do so myself but am working away from my office and only have access to a mobile device which is choking on VE bugs right now. Thanks.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can do that. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 09:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion
There is a village pump discussion that pertains to the DR/N in some small manner at Village pump (proposals).--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is also on Jimbo Wales talk page. Also....I have no idea why this keeps showing up on your talk page so small.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .....and good morning!--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good morning indeed. I've arrived to Hong Kong for Wikimania, and I have been in discussions with MedCom. Do you have time to do some IRC or Google Hangout? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do have time but still need to figure out what I was doing wrong about sound on my end. I will do some work over here. Fantastic job on the new volunteer list. That must have taken a small amount of work to set up. If you need any help let me know, but I am sure you are more than capable.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over Big.LITTLE article.
Hi there,

I'm involved in a dispute over the capitalization of the article "Big.LITTLE". My point of view is that anyone who has a basic understanding of professional journalism knows that titles get one uppercase letter per word, and that it looks very unprofessional to use all caps (it's also bad English).

Do you know of any well-known editors who have degrees in journalism, or any type of English language degree? People with degrees in Maths/Engineering are kind of the opposite of this.

Here's a link to the discussion: Talk:Big.LITTLE

InternetMeme (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition, a current dispute resolution volunteer who claims to "prefer the more controversial cases where emotions run high and a calm. reasoned, and structured discussion is needed." has intentionally insulted me, and I therefore have no faith in his ability to resolve any kind of dispute. InternetMeme (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've seen this and will comment further in the morning. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

 * Thanks, that's most appreciated :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. AutomaticStrikeout ?  16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting you at ANI
I just received a ping from an editor that filed a request at DR/N that you closed involving user:Sitush. I agree with your assessment of the situation and will be quoting you with " I think the boomerang effect applies here, and would suggest that if this sort of conduct continues, that Sitush should consider ANI."-- Mark  Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 04:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 04:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed myself from the board. No longer a net positive for me or DR/N. Good luck. I hope to return someday.-- Mark  Just ask! 05:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically I am being attacked as a DR/N volunteer by user:Soham321 and it has become too much for me to handle at the moment. It makes DR/N look bad and compounded by recent events leads me to the conclusion that I am bringing the board down and my absence can only improve the project and board. I don't think there is anything you can do, but I very much appreciate the thought. Perhaps one day I can return and not be a burden to your efforts that I hold in very high regard. This is not about me. This is about maintaining the trust of the community which I doubt can be accomplished with my further involvement.-- Mark  Just ask! 06:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inactive account creators. Thank you.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 07:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Help about sockpuppet investigation
Hi, Steven Zhang. I'm Jingiby. Excuse me, but I'm not quite familiar with the procedure on investigation of sock-puppets and I would like you to cooperate with me. The case is as follows: on the article Bulgarians previously was active an  who was subsequently  blocked. It was blocked also his sockpuppet. Both were very active on the section called Genetic origins. However then, they didn't provide any reliable arguments on talk section concerning the issue, they only made blind reverts and were as a consequence blocked. Afterwards, with the help of a third party Slovenski Volk a consensus was reached on the talk-page and the section was formed under the rules of NPOV. However since yesterday, a newly registred and  took up the same campaign of edit-warring and blind reverts at the same issue without any arguments. How to deal with this case. Thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Is this issue still open - please let me know and I'll see what I can do to help. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zhang, but I think that now the case has calmed down. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons
Your tattoo pic on commons may need you to justify timer or remote shutter release as author. Depending on the country the rights holder may be the camera owner. See also: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png. If a Wikipedian took it then they could probably just change to their name in the author field and confirm the license in the edit summary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The photo was taken at Wikimania by someone else, I can't remember who took the photo. If ultimately necessary the photo could be re-taken, but I honestly don't think someone will have an objection with this photo. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it but others may. I saw OTRS turn down a US presidential candidate's portrait if he didn't provide a signed document that the copyright holder sold him the rights. You could just put 'a fellow Wikipedian' as author. That may pass scrutiny if anyone questions it. A re-take may solve it as well. If it was your camera the law in that country may have you as the rights holder. In Canada the film or memory stick owner had copyright until July, 2012, the law changed then to the button pusher.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Hi Steven, Hope you are doing well. Thanks for all the great work you have done for the project over the years. I am especially thankful for your work with DR. I have mentioned youf RfA at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and thought it would be courteous to let you know about it. I'm sure it was not a very pleasant experience for you. It was painful for me to watch people pile on like that. I hope the community will be more understanding if you decide to run in the future. Kind regards. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I appreciate the kind words. I have considered running for RFA again (and others have encouraged me to do so, as the last one was almost 2 years ago) but I still worry that I'd fail again, partly because of what happened in 2008, but also due to my minimal recent article contributions. I understand the importance of it, I just feel others are much better at it than me and my time is better utilised doing other things (like DR and so on). Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. The project is not what it was many long years ago. BTW, I must aplogize for not following up with the DR improvement stuff when we were . I had a number of ideas at the time but ended up getting side tracked on other stuff. Sorry about that. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I've been pretty flat out so it's sort of fallen by the wayside at the moment, but I do hope to pick it up soon. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Slightly annoying interaction
Hello, I figured I'd help out on DRN a bit, and had this slightly annoying interaction with a(nother) DRN volunteer:. I wouldn't bother you, but my standard procedure on removal of discussion is to at very least leave a note somewhere. Perhaps this particular user just happened to be having a bad day today, perhaps it's a wider pattern, or perhaps I've been away too long and missed something that should have been obvious. I don't think people should call each other clueless though, I did push back a little bit against that O:-). In any case, I guess you'll know best here. :-)  --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (Response from talk page lurker.) Kim, I started the ball rolling that Hasteur finished, so let me respond. (I presume that you're asking about what happened at DRN, not the removal of the discussion from Hasteur's talk page. That, of course, is expressly permitted by the talk page policy. A lot of people don't like the fact that it can be done, but several attempts to change it have failed.) DRN was created to be a "quick and light" DR process and, as part of that, there is a bot which automatically archives disputes after 14 — not 10 as mentioned by Hasteur — days if any 24-hour period passes in which there is no edit in the dispute. The notion was that if after 14 days the matter is not being actively discussed then it ought to move back to the article talk page or on to some other form of DR. There was about a week, however, during which we experimented with putting each dispute on its own subpage. The bot was not set up to handle those subpaged disputes, though the plan was to have it do so once we saw how the subpaging experiment worked out. The Ghost in the Shell dispute was one of those subpaged disputes, so the autoclose bot could not work on it. The subpaging experiment failed, leaving the disputes which were on subpages in limbo. That's the reason that I proposed to close it on August 26, which Hasteur then did when nothing more happened. The autoclose isn't discussed in the project guidelines because it's ordinarily automatic. (I've considered putting it into the guidelines several times so it won't come as a surprise, but have always decided not to do it because the guidelines are already overcomplicated.) In short, this dispute was an anomaly which had to be handled manually because the automatic features weren't working on it. I think that's the explanation that you were looking for in this edit. If it's not, leave a note here and I'll see if I can't explain it more. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a more extensive answer than I expected. Thank you very much!
 * So, hmm, from what you tell me, I think perhaps DRN was slightly too lightweight for this particular discussion/approach in this case then.
 * On the other hand, I'll see what I can do qua speed- chess mediation next time :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Kim, sorry for my delayed response. I agree with what TransporterMan has said., thanks for chiming in on this one in my abscence. RL is flat out, as always. I got that tattoo, btw. Have you seen it? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Utterly cool. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven;

I'm about to undertake a mediation that might be quite long, and it looks quite complex (it's the "anti-Serb sentiment" dispute). Would you mind helping me mediate it,to keep track of the various arguments?

--The Historian (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there - sure. Taking a look at it, this looks like a rather complex one. I might take the lead on this one but you can help if you want? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi;

I'd be very happy to help. What I'm going to do is kick off by asking the parties to summarise their cases in one paragraph or less. I also need one of the users who provided a non-working link to correct it to show what he actually intends it to show. --The Historian (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed in dispute
Hello, I'd like to request mediation (or at least comment from a higher-level user) regarding my dispute with User:Anthonyhcole regarding his reversion of my contribution,. I can understand if he wants to change my wording, but he should not have removed the citations. Thanks. ThVa (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Developments in our joint mediation case (the anti-serb one)
Hi Steve;

Hope the Australian election went the way you expected (unrelated, I know, but just to say hello). Re our joint mediation on the anti-Serb sentiment case, it turns out that the parties are simply arguing over whether or not WP:CONSISTENSY applies. Having looked at the relevant policy, I don't think it does, and have said the same. I have, however, attached the proviso that my words should not be taken as gospel until "the lead mediator" (i.e. you) has had a look at and okayed my findings, so could you have a looksee at what I've put and comment thereon please? Please also be aware that I'm currently involved in a large ArbCom case regarding the renaming of the "Bradley Manning" article (you might have heard of it), and some of the behaviour in the ensuing discussion was a bit nasty, so ArbCom are now inovolved to clear up the mess. Thus I might be a bit slow, since the assertions I'm planning on making require a lot of trawling through diffs and other historical records, which I'm not very good at, so it'll take a while to do.

Cheers;

--The Historian (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hated the result of the election. I think you've handled the dispute well enough so far. I'm aware of the Manning article. I'll try keep an eye on DRN (it's a bit slow at the moment there). Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution thoughts
Steven, I saw your posts at Jimbo's page, which reminded me that you are very active and interested in DR.

I've been mulling over some thoughts on how to improve the DR process, and thought I should share. You have a deeper appreciation than I have for the history of the concept on WP (and probably elsewhere). I am familiar with WP:DR, WP:MEDCOM, and other relevant places, I may well have missed some important locations.

Our existing DR mechanisms do a decent job on small and medium disputes, but are lacking when in comes to larger disputes,. I'm working on designing a framework that would be suitable for larger issues (although overkill for ordinary disputes). One of my goals is to do it within the existing framework of an egalitarian, non-hierarchical paradigm. While some elements will appear to violate that concept, I believe the approach as a whole does not.

In short, I propose a process consisting of three broad steps:


 * 1) A moderated brainstorming session
 * 2) A moderated discussion
 * 3) A structured RfC

Many people think of a brainstorming session as a free-form discussion, where any and all can contribute, with an emphasis on thinking outside the box. Many editors may feel that the Wikipedia culture is very consistent with this type of thinking, and may feel that many discussion in the WP name space qualify as brainstorming sessions. However, as our own article on brainstorming points out, a key element of the concept is the deferring of judgment, the withholding of criticism until a later step. This we are not so good at; I doubt I need to provide examples, but can. It isn't trivial to change this. The very same culture which allows an IP to jump into a conversation with Jimbo, or newbie editors to disagree with established editors, means that one editor proposing an interesting idea may well be met by three explaining why it cannot or should not be done.

The irony is that the very culture which prides itself on allowing anyone to speak at any time turns out to stifle the brainstorming process. We literally need to add a filter in order to increase the volume of interesting, out of the box ideas. We cannot simply decree a filter; that would be met by understandable opposition, which is why I want to emphasize that this is a three step process, with some limitations at some points, in order to improve the results, yet a way for anyone to have their say before any proposal is actually implemented.

(A brief aside, to explain that my thinking is motivating by a multi-year, multi-million franc software project I am working on. We started with a brainstorming session which defined the problem, defined an initial draft scope, and defined system requirements, which were, understandably ambitious, as time and budget constraints were not allowed. We then went to a moderated prioritization phase, to assess dependencies, importance, and impose budget and time constraints. A third step isn't needed in a corporate environment which does not have the same culture as Wikipedia, so our process stopped at step 2. Back to Wikipedia DR.)

Once the brainstorming session is completed, we should by now have the problem statement specified, as well as a number of potential solutions some of which may seem far-fetched. We move to a moderated discussion, in which we introduce the constraints and limitations which were excluded from the brainstorming stage, and begin to prioritize the options. A key word is "moderator" as one or more moderators are identified who have the ability to keep discussion from veering off-track. They can literally move comments to other areas. I'm still wrestling with whether than should have the ability to completely remove comments, or simply the ability to move off-topic diversions to an off-topic diversion area, where participants can try to accomplish something which can be brought back if successful.

Again, the concept of a moderated discussion is counter to the current Wikipedia ethos, in which refactoring of comments is very much frowned upon. However, I re-emphasize that any participant feeling shut out will have a chance to weigh in at other stages of the process.

The product of the moderated discussion should be a formal proposal. While virtually certain not to be a perfect result, it will serve as a draft which now is the centerpiece of an RfC. This RfC is open to all editors, including and especially ones who might have felt shut out in either step 1 or step 2. (Which is why their issues cannot simply be dismissed. If an editor has an objection in the brainstorming phase which is rejected due to the process, they will be able to bring it to step 2. If an editor feels shut down by the moderator in step 2, but still feels they have a valid point, they will be able to bring it up in step three, so moderators cannot capriciously ignore editors in step 2.)

The main aspect I wish to emphasize in step three is that the RfC have some structure. Too many RfCs mix up the problem statement and the proposed solution, and allow discussion of both aspects to intermix with the proposals. We do know how to separate these elements. Someone "running" the RfC would act much like a clerk as ArbCom, perhaps not contributing directly, but making sure that the process is followed.

I don't wish to pretend this is a magic bullet. Some of our more intractable disputes are not going to magically solve themselves with this process. However, I see many editors throwing up their hands at the thought of starting an RfC because they judge (correctly) that our usual approach will fail. However, when I see 2% success rates using Mediation, I have a low hurdle to overcome. If this approach were successful one in ten times, that would be a five-fold improvement.

The above is a rough draft, and needs to be refined, I'm posting it mainly to convince you that I am seriously interested in the process, and have some thoughts and interest in working with you and others to make some improvements.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * have not been ignoring you, have just been flat out lately. I will reply more in depth, but briefly, I broadly agree with your proposal and think it would be a wise way forward. Let me read over this a bit more and give you some more in depth thoughts. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I understand the challenges of being busy. No rush, of course. Let me know when you would like to discuss it further. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , hey, sorry for the delay again. Would you be open to doing a Skype/Google Hangout chat about this (I find it's much more effective to discuss a lot in a short space of time)? Steven Zhang (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this. In fact, I just checked my notifications list, and it isn't there. Which is surprising, but a different issue. Yes, I would like to talk about this more. I am not a regular Skype user, but have an account. Let me know a good time, and I'll watch this space.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Tangential note: The Notification didn't work, because the spelling was off in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Zhang&diff=prev&oldid=574964784 first save], and Mention-Notifications only trigger if a 4tilde-signature and user-link are added in the same save (although the signature requirement is currently being discussed for possible removal).) –Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Tangential response: I was troubled by the failure, but now understand. Thanks.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please leave a talkback if you find some time.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , let's make a time? I'm relatively free tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
- TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AWOL
Just FYI: User talk:TransporterMan. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC) thanks for letting me know. Don't forget your co-ordinator shift at DRN starts soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm back but unless we get some volunteers who will actually take cases, there's not going to be anything to coordinate. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. Things look pretty dire. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No progress at all on the List of current world boxing champions
Greetings. This pertains to the dispute resolution request posted here. As can be seen from the write-ups I've left on his talk page during the past year or so—here and here—User:Claudevsq absolutely refuses to discuss or come to any sort of agreement on how the article in question should be presented, style-wise. He insists on enforcing some made-up rules relating to other websites independent of WP, all the while never leaving an edit summary upon reverting my edits (now twice daily for the past week).

My rationale for getting involved in the first place is that I believe the article should be consistent throughout and make use of WP's naming conventions, rather than those used elsewhere. As an example, User:Claudevsq refuses to allow the articles for boxers Sergio Martínez, Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. to be displayed as WP has them spelt, title-wise. He maintains, via sparsely-written responses on both the article's talk page and my own, that some "system" on other websites is affected by this; going so far as to make nonsensical claims that "dots like in "Jr." disturb the system" and "accents create problems in BoxRec systems". Neither of those explanations make any sense, since BoxRec has nothing to do with WP.

To further his inconsistency in following his own set of undefined 'rules', he has no problem with keeping accents in various names such as Yoan Pablo Hernández or Juan Manuel Márquez, and even ludicrously makes it a point to include an accented "Ó" for Oscar De La Hoya when there is none to be seen. I can take responsibility for descending to his level and continuing an edit war, but in my defence (if one is needed..) I have attempted on a multitude of occasions to discuss the matter with him. Admittedly I have quite a 'wordy' style of putting things forth, which may be clashing with his seemingly 'silent but impulsive' style, but what can I say—I enjoy a good discussion about the minutiae of WP. He evidently does not.

Nonetheless, my apologies for dragging this out so much! If there is anything you could do to get him to proverbially 'come to the negotiating table', it'd be appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for filling me in a bit more. I'll see if they come to DRN on their own volition, but will poke them tomorrow if there aren't any updates. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I responded to the message you left on my talkpage regarding my lack of participation at DRN. You'll find my response under your original message. The Historian (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Implementing MedCom policy change
I've replied to your comment on the MedCom Policy talk page here. MedCom would welcome your suggestions. Sunray (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll comment later this evening. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you saw my follow up question. You mentioned that you would be willing to propose a process to revamp DRN. What do you foresee as a timeframe for doing that? Sunray (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN bot
Steve, I know nothing about coding and bots, but it appears to me that the DRN listing bot is not notifying everyone in a dispute, and I know that it's not updating the volunteer actions. For example, in Steamtown, U.S.A., it looks to me like only one out of 5 parties was notified by the bot. The listing party notified one or two others, but has been criticized on the article talk page for not notifying everyone. We've also had a complaint on the DRN talk page. I know you're busy in RL but could you please address this as soon as you can? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Crappers. Let me look into what's going on. Steven Zhang (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , I've figured out the issue, the bot doesn't know to look for the new list of volunteers. I'll have to put a stop-gap measure in. Steven Zhang (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Steamtown case, I now see that the listing party just listed himself and one other party, and then that party added three more, so the listing bot didn't have a chance to list them. The previous notification complaint by Sitush happened when there was a coding problem on the page which broke the bot, I think. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery
Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new  parser function. For example,  or. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
I was wondering if you could adopt me to help me correct my behavior flaws and make me a better editor. I'm very active and have a diverse interest in pages; aside from the A&M conflict region which I have excused myself, I need a more conflict resolution and detailed policy mentoring. I hope you are willing to mentor me! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Chris. Normally, I'd love to, but I find myself a bit swamped at present and feel that if I was to take you on, I wouldn't have enough time to dedicate to you. Sorry :) Steven Zhang (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter
Hey Steven Zhang. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at IRC office hours.
 * The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

DRN not archiving
Would you see if you can figure out why? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some shrimp for your barbie
Hello friend! Since I know you're somewhat fantastic at dispute resolution, I was wondering if you could take a look at this monstrosity regarding the use of inclusion criteria. This list has been brought to AFD 7 times already (mostly due to this dispute), the last of which I recently closed as a keep... as such I would love it (and I'm sure the involved editors would as well) if you could help mediate the drafting of said inclusion criteria, so as to prevent it from showing back up at AFD again. Any help would be greatly appreciated Mr. Zzzzzzhang. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey mate. I'd love to, but at the moment I'm a bit busy. Oh, and btw, it's no longer shrimp on the barbie. Google it, sergeant. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How dare you be busy... no one said you could become president of Wikimedia Australia. (Well I didn't say you could...) And google says nothing about your shrimps being put on things other than a barbie. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well, sorree!. Also, you obviously haven't seen this. And we call them prawns, not shrimp. YOU call it shrimp, we had to translate into US english for the ad we made for the US, because you folk don't understand normal english. Like, last year, I went to San Fran. Had my luggage and asked the taxi driver twice if i should put it in the boot, to which he replied "the what", so I had to translate into American English and call it the trunk, and he was like, oh yea, put it in the trunk. TRUNKS ARE PARTS OF TREES NOT CARS!. lulz. <3 you. Steven Zhang (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BOOTS ARE FOR FEET NOT LUGGAGE... for instance I'm wearing boots right now... well one boot as my other foot is in a brace due to me fracturing my ankle after running away from ninja crocodiles, but that's besides the point. The only reasonable way one could put luggage into a boot is if said one happened to be a mouse. I rest my case... and foot. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hello. On the dispute resolution NB a few months ago you suggested you might be willing to help set up an RfC for Intelligent Design, which has a pattern of repeating debates about similar matters. As mentioned at the time, I was sceptical, but I am have started playing with ideas, based on my latest understanding of what the real dividing lines are. So far this is on my userspace, and probably written in a style I am more comfortable with than others. (I like breaking down subjects logically.) I have very little experience in such things and of course a third party opinion might alert me to major issues which make my ideas useless. Would you have a look? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RfC_draft .Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I ask again for feedback on this draft RfC. After looking around at examples myself I see it is rather complex, but I also see no escape from that given the situation on the talkpage where the two arguments which constantly reappear are that everything has been argued before already and there is no point discussing it unless there is an RfC first. I can see that a simplistic RfC will achieve exactly what has happened in the past: nothing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot
Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everything in 2013!

 * Thanks Kerry. I hope you had a great Christmas too and hope we have a productive year next year :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh, thanks. But I'm not an admin :) Steven Zhang (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your work here is administrative and I am shure you will be one. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback on behalf of
Regards, --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Steven, I don't know if you have any time but this case, Criticisms of the theory of relativity,  has been waiting a week for a moderator. So please help if you can. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Foundation wiki account created
Hi Steven, just wanted to let you know that your request for an account on Foundation wiki has been approved. It's nice to make your acquaintance here on wiki. :) Best, Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anna :) Steven Zhang (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Email
Hi Steven, you've got mail! Mat ty. 007 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Abuse Adminship
It's been two years and about three months now. You should run again now please. I'd be delighted to nominate (again!) but if that might put the kiss of death on it, then just go for a self-nom. Either way, it's time my friend. Pedro : Chat  15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Pedro, I'm honoured and happy to know you are well, but even I know I'd have less chance at passing RFA than Osama Bin Laden would have at getting US citizenship. I've barely edited in the last year or so, and it'd be a definite cause for failure (even though I have been active doing chapter work for WMAU). Maybe one day when I have more free time I'll be editing EN enough to warrant adminship, but I'm not sure that time js now. P.S. It's Requests For Agony. Get it right. Steven Zhang (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay mate, I admire your caution and realism. Perhaps another time. And yes, apologies. Agony. Lol. :) Pedro : Chat  09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Help on Mata Amritanandamayi Page
Hi Steven, I found your name on the list of volunteers. I'm requesting help on how to resolve a dispute on the BLP for Mata Amritanandamayi. There is currently a self-published book written by one of her detractors and ex-supporter. I feel that some editors are trying to use WikiPedia as a platform to defame the subject by using this book. They either cite the book or articles about the book that are written in a foreign language. It's a little bit of a gray area, but I believe that exceptional claims call for exceptional sourcing. Therefore I feel that foreign language articles about a self-published book are unexceptional. Furthermore, I do not know whether the media sources are mainstream or not. I'm trying to avoid a content dispute, but I feel out of my depth. Help (or at least guidance) would be greatly appreciated. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BCD
I was looking for a particular policy and I ran accross this particular proposal WP:BCD.It seems you and a friend authored it. I put this up on the village pump idea lab. I have no issue with RFC being used to do things that effectively create policy. However with the example that I posted there in the village pump I don't see any limitations set in place. I'm not here or on the village pump to canvass for that RFC. The only issue that actually bothers me in it is that it could be used to effectively create a policy that effects the community with little community involvement and little effort to bring in wider community involvement. While yes I want to prevent them from doing that it's about anyone doing that. The potential abuse I see as being far to great. Personally being that there are other ways to accomplish policy I don't see it as necessary to allow a RFC to propose policy. I mean a low level RFC just as the example is made. There has to be some system of oversight and some limitation. And it needs to be clear. The reason I'm here is to ask help in writing a proposal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Libraries
Hi Stephen, I understand you might be coming to my talk on Wikipedia and Libraries on Thursday. If so I look forward to meeting you, and to having you extend a welcome to libraries in your community! Merrilee (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I will be there. See you then :) Steven Zhang (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

IEG -- Need a bio from you
Hi Steve-- we're just waiting on everyone to finish their bios before we officially propose the IEG. As soon as you are able, please write a little about your background on the IEG here. Thanks! I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, sorry to keep you waiting. Steven Zhang (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion requested
One of the problems of the current "higher" forms of DR — DRN and MEDCOM — is that not much can be done at either place if some of the major participants in the dispute do not choose to join in. I've worked up a draft proposal for a fourth form of DR (3O being the third one) which would avoid that problem, but only in those cases which have been rejected at DRN or MEDCOM for lack of partipation. I'm inviting a small group of my DR colleagues — AGK, Hasteur, Keithbob, Macon, Miller, Strad, Writ Keeper, and Zhang — to tell me what they think of the feasibility of this idea. (And if any of you would like to invite someone else to the party, feel free to do so.) The proposal is located in my sandbox in my sandbox here. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate your comments on the talk page there. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator: GO!
You're up. I've already updated the various "current coordinator" announcements because I'm not sure I can be online all day today. I'll see you around the noticeboard. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint and potential action pertaining to an unresolved dispute
A complaint was in progress on DRN pertaining to the obvious fact that there is no valid physics which can confirm any possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect on Venus. That complaint was terminated without any response based on valid physics, and I am assuming that the real reason is that no one has a valid response.

If this complaint is not re-opened and appropriate scientific discussion ensues, then please understand that I am an active author through other media and will cite and discuss this draconian action by a WP committee in a fashion which would inevitably be detrimental to any reputation WP may have for presenting valid science.

Below is a comment I have just written on the Venus talk page, and this could be used as a summary in a re-opened dispute ...

I use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to confirm that any given location on the equator of Venus must cool by a finite amount during the 4-month-long Venus night. There is information that I have read which states the cooling is 5 degrees from 737K to 732K. The exact amount is not important, however, because there is no indication of any long term cooling in mean temperatures and so we can deduce that the given location will warm back up again by the same amount during the next 4-month-long day. Hence there is net energy entering the surface in the day. So I use the Second Law again to prove that the net energy entering the surface cannot be doing so by way of radiation from the colder atmosphere, because numerous sources (such as this*) indicate that all regions of the atmosphere have lower temperatures than the surface, and the Second Law states that entropy cannot decrease. In addition I then use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine that an incoming solar radiative flux that would be required to raise the surface temperature would be in the vicinity of 14,000 to 16,000 watts per square meter for a realistic surface emissivity in the vicinity of 0.85 to 0.95. I then compare known data pertaining to solar flux reaching the TOA of Venus and state that even all the radiative flux reaching TOA would be far too little to result in a net energy input into the Venus surface. The First Law of Thermodynamics can be used to prove that energy in the total flux entering the Venus surface cannot be increased by any amount by any process (such as back radiation) within the atmosphere, because we cannot get such a huge increase in energy in any given time coming out of the atmosphere than we put into the atmosphere. Hence the concepts assumed in the radiative greenhouse postulate pertaining to Venus do not fall within the laws of physics, and are thus invalid.

What evidence can the author(s) and/or editors of the article provide which shows any global warming on Venus in the temperature measurements for the Venus surface that have now been recorded for a few decades? If there is any proof of warming due to 96% of CO2 then why would that not indicate far, far lower warming expected for the 0.04% of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere?


 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273117785902698

Douglas Cotton (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about DRN
I started a DRN - but I also volunteered to help with other DRNs at the same time. My DRN now says "In Progress." Does the system think that a volunteer opened the DRN, as apparently happens sometimes when an involved editor is also a volunteer? Should I remove my name from the volunteer list? Will I actually get a notice on my talk page when a volunteer takes on my DRN? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DRN Award

 * Thanks . Sorry I haven't been around much - chapter work and so on. Looking forward to getting back in the swing of things in the coming months. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

With no bot and the possibility that anyone running it can do the same as Earwig...
I am going to propose that DRN be restructures as a simple noticeboard without any forms, bots or notifications and return it to a simple noticeboard as all of our boards are. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, what happened to the bot? Consider me caught up, Mark. If Earwig has decided to shut down the bot, I don't think reverting DRN to a barebones format like it used to be will work. Though it's been a while, we have statistics that show the current format works better than the previous, so I'd be reluctant to pull the plug on it. Maybe we can find a new bot op? 05:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK...now if you can...could you catch me up. I am seriously confused. I cuaght the tail end of the discussion and all hell broke loose because bot operators don't work through a consensus. this is something i was not aware of. While i persoanlly no longer trust any bot operators, i trust your opinion more than my reaction. i will leave this to you becaue clearly this pissed me off to no end. i don't know why...wait...yes I do. I feel we have no true support from admin. Not that we truly don't, but that i feel we have been attacked by too many admin to trust them further on this subject. i support admin...I really do.......which is why my disapointment is so extreme. oh well......they do what they do and we reat as we react. DRN sufferes from the reaction of one and i am demonized for my reaction. Double standrad...yes, I see it as such. But the more important issue is that poor Earwig has been mistreated to the point that they gave up. Well.....At least I had no part in that. Just all the crap after that to this point. I am done as Eartwig has proven that, while i questioned their professionalism, they actaully staid level headed and cool for the most part. Gotta admire them for that much.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, with all due respect, you're jumping to conclusions, and there's no need to establish a a lack of trust of our bot operators. This is the case of one bot shutting down by surprise. We have dozens of bots here on the English Wikipedia. Don't let one bad moment tarnish all the good. If I come across one factual error on Wikipedia, does that suddenly mean that Wikipedia is a terrible resource? It's not that black and white.
 * Bot operators are volunteers just like you and me. They take countless hours out of their time to build and maintain bots, and take responsibility for all the bot's edits. Bots are approved through a strict process after a lot of development and testing. If a bot operator wishes to stop the bot, that is completely within their right to do so, just as any editor can stop making edits. They're not slaves to the system, and they shouldn't be. The fact that Wikipedia allows volunteers to commit their own time to building bots has allowed for countless hours to be saved with vandalism cleanup, archiving, etc., which would have otherwise not been possible.
 * Could the situation with DRN's bot been handled better? Probably, but that's another discussion. In the end, the source code is provided. This will get sorted out soon enough and there's nothing to get distressed about. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 08:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey for editors who mentor newcomer
Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)