User talk:Wer900/Archive1

DYK for KOI-872
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
It does! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions!

Cheers, Riley Huntley (talk) No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Improved coordination
I find your ideas regarding this subject fascinating, and hope that you do not continue to be met with the typical resistance to this form of change. Good luck, and keep up the good work. dci &#124;  TALK   03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I give my utmost thanks to your support of my ideas. The aid of individuals like you is what allows ideas which move this encyclopedia&mdash;and civilization itself&mdash;to be implemented and to allow them to work their wonders. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you're not getting much support over at the RfC, but what do you think of this idea: an RfC on where we are as an encyclopedia and as a community, where all would be invited to discuss their views on community-wide problems, area-specific problems, and potential solutions. This would not last indefinitely, and would be a way to reflect and also to revitalize the many useful areas of Wikipedia that have, regrettably, fallen silent in the past few years.  This discussion could be started with a few basic questions and room for discussion under the questions, and then the discussion could go wherever participants may take it.  dci  &#124;  TALK   16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trout Slap Replica
As the sole supporter of your proposal to improve Wikipedia co-ordination, allow me to pre-emprively apply the proposed trout-slap. More gently, surely, than if by an opponent. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk)

Your sig
I noticed you've done something to your sig that, for some reason, disrupts the flow of this discussion. I don't know why, have you added a line break or something like that? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Page move

 * Wer900 moved page Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact to Talk:Implications of extraterrestrial contact: Implementing peer review recommendations

The only problem is, that is not what the peer review recommended. The peer review suggested "Impact of extraterrestrial contact" based on an unsourced sentence in the lead section. The reviewer is probably not aware that the subject of such impact is best covered under the cultural impact title based on the sources. In any case, you moved the article to "Implications of extraterrestrial contact" which is not what the reviewer suggested or recommended. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Culture is typically associated with art, music, food, etc. Not necessarily science and technology, so I changed the title to encompass the subjects contained within more completely. Yes, the vast majority is dedicated to "cultural" impacts but there are topics which do not typically have "cultural" associations. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Western culture, as an example, refers "to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, religious beliefs, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies."  It isn't that these things don't have cultural associations; they are a part of our dominant culture.  Contact with a hypothetical ET culture would impact our culture, which is what the topic is about, and this is why the cultural term is so important.  Deleting "culture" and changing it to "implications" tells me have a fundamental communication problem here.  Furthermore, the suggestion of the peer reviewer was made based on an unsourced statement in the lead section, not on the sources themselves, the majority of which discuss this topic in terms of a cultural impact. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll need an admin to reverse the move. I'll make a request at WP:Requested moves. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need an admin to reverse the move. I reverted it.  I'm concerned that you are falling back into the previous arguments you made in March, when you said "this only documents the implications that an actual visit by extraterrestrials may have for humanity".  We've previously discussed the issues with the title, and now it seems like you are ignoring those discussions and changing it back to another disputed title. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Then I can remove the RM. I didn't remember the discussion by the way. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is, the current topic is about "the potential impact that contact with a highly advanced intelligence will have on human civilization." This impact is generally referred to as cultural impact by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Source access
Please make a list of the sources you don't have access to, and I will make an attempt to help you gain access. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources not cited within the article

 * Pretty much everything in this Google Scholar search for "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" which is related to the subject but not cited in the article Information related to the subject found here Relevant information found here Relevant information found here

I'll update when I find more sources. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will address this when I'm at home in a few hours. First, may I ask, why are you using sources in the current article that you don't have access to?  Are you using them because you found them in other sources (as cited in)?  I'm a bit confused. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have access to brief excerpts and abstracts, but nothing more. They provide some information but not the comprehensive work one is looking for (e.g. "The impact of contact," Finney [2000]. That's why they were cited, but much more information could be gained had I possessed the full work. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know, Finney's 1990 work has been probably superseded by his more recent work, and many of the popular books you've listed above repeat already published information.  For what it is worth, I believe there is an editor on the WP:RX who has access to the Elsevier catalog, and I think this includes Acta Astronautica.  I'll file a request in a few hours.  I'm not sure how you're going about doing research, but when I do it, I start with the most notable works and authors in the field.  For example, can you point to major authors and works on this subject, as noted by the sources themselves?  Have you made a list of them?  Do you have access to these works?  I would start with answering those questions first. I can help construct this list as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the major authors on the subject, this list is not intended to be exhaustive:
 * Tarter, Shostak et al.
 * Dr. Allen Tough (d. 2012)
 * Ben Finney
 * Dominik Martin
 * Kathryn Denning
 * M. A. G Michaud
 * Albert A. Harrison
 * Robert Freitas
 * Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to the Finney journal article has been uploaded to the RX board. Go to my talk page and click on the talkback link. The uploader has provided images of the journal article for download. You will need to save them to your device/machine. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the link was bad. Here is the correct link: WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Download PDF Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting this to me. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration
Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments on the proposal. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any feedback gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

smacking you with multiple fish
For your apparent inability to take "no" for an answer after two rapid snowball rejections of your ideas, I hereby award you this rare triple trout with bracketing minnows

Now please, take off the costume and come down off the roof. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not my aim. There was only one rejection, and I'm sure you didn't read a word beyond the title and slapped the trouts. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 03:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I read your proposal. It was different in the details but you have again missed the point that Wikipedia does not have, nor does it desire to have, an elected government. The underlying concept runs against the philosophical underpinnings of this project and the idea of consensus based decision making. Changing the details of how the government is selected pr what their responsibilities and authorities are will not change the fact that the entire concept is incompatible with how Wikipedia works. I suggest you find a mre constructive way to spend your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So your closure was politically motivated? I don't think that my proposal counted as vandalism or misconduct. By the way, I intend consensus-based decision-making to be the main driving force of the project, with this elected government only dealing with large-scale issues where the community has, time after time, failed to organize itself. That is the reason we have the Arbitration Committee, and it only makes sense to fill the huge power vacuum which exists because there is no legislative/executive counterpart to the ArbCom. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * I didn't close the discussion and don't know why you think I did, but I have suggested that you withdraw it and I have asked for an uninvolved party to close it at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
 * We don't have "politics" here so I don't know what you mean by that accusation
 * The arbitration commitee exists to help resolve intractible disputes. It is not the judicial branch of an otherwise non-existent government, that's just what you imagine it to be despite the community telling you, repeatedly and in strong terms, that you are incorrect and we do not need or desire a formal governmental structure. See WP:DEM and WP:NOTBURO.
 * Now please let it go already. Your idea has been strongly rejected. If you re-present it again anytime soon it is extremely likely that you will face some sorrt of topic ban or sanction per WP:POINT. This is an encyclopedia. Once again I suggest you focus on that until such time as the "existential awakening" you seem to think is coming actually occurs. I'm sure you have much of value to offer this project, but you need to accept that this idea is not compatible with how things work here and will not be implemented no matter how many times you alter the details and re-present it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not present this in the near future. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD Nominations
Hi, I removed your AfD nomination from Shri M.D. Shah Mahila College of Arts and Commerce as you have still not completed the nomination process. Please see WP:AfD for a full run down on how to nominate an article for deletion. Feel free to renominate the article when your ready to complete the process. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Shrike (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ma== How DO we stop_forbidding_copying_of_properly_licensed_free_content? ==

Re. your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_96#Proposal_re.:_Wording_change_needed_to_stop_forbidding_copying_of_properly_licensed_free_content - So how DO we fix the current defective text? Please be constructive. --Elvey (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... no answer.   I don't think it's OK to deceive editors.  Do you?--Elvey (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a work is in the public domain, it will probably be noted as such or it will be obvious. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 22:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * O. M. G. Thanks for replying -- it's now evident that if someone has no understanding of what the problem that needs fixing even is, of course that someone can't can't provide alternate text to fix it.  (It's not a problem with PD works!)  --Elvey (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * My greatest thanks to you, Shrike. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact ...
Hi. One thing I think might compromise the FAC is that too many of the sources, including books, are presented without page numbers. If you don't want to split the citations by source page, an alternative would be to use Template:rp. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll split the citations should the issue arise on the FAC. I don't think that RP is appropriate, as it seems to be used mostly on articles dedicated to religion. This article has a section about religion, but that's not the whole thing. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 15:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, your choice. It isn't mostly religion, though -- see . --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just like the splitting, though, in order to maintain harmony with the existing format of the article.
 * Very good. The splitting option is never wrong. --Stfg (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But seriously -- very seriously -- sign your posts. That one you put inside Nikkimaria's comments in the FAC review without signing it is really confusing and will irritate people. Sign everything you save! --Stfg (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your sig
FYI...your sig tends to take up a lot of room and is a bit distracting. Any chance you can shorten it with symbols or abbreviations? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 23:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still an issue. The links to WP:LOOSE and WP:C-D are unnecessary (put them on your user page, if you wish); and the inline styling breaks some pages. Please remove both. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Wer900 • talk 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy Wikipedia Support
I noticed your profile said your write about astronomy and provide assistance to new wikipedians. Can I dialogue with you about how to properly get my theory Planetary Evolution documented on Wikipedia. Thx

--Rvansteenberg (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do highly value your interest in astronomy, I would be unable to get your theory documented on Wikipedia no matter how hard I were to try. As per the policy on what Wikipedia is not, one cannot post personal hypotheses on Wikipedia unless that theory has been characterized in detail by an external, reliable source such as the New York Times. In addition, Wikipedia is not a forum to promote a given topic, but rather to document the coverage of a topic in reliable sources. It is therefore that your topic cannot possibly earn a page on Wikipedia. I understand that as a new user, you are unaware of its policies and guidelines. Please do not despair, though, as I think that you will be able to make a great editor. However, first you should read up on astronomy - there are no data which support your hypothesis, and I feel like yours is a hypothesis that has cobbled together different elements of the generally accepted nebular theory and reversed some of them, putting them together in the wrong order and renaming them. Then there are some events which occur only under specific circumstances, and you have cobbled together all events under all circumstances. There is no way that a planet can become a comet, unless it first goes close to its star and is almost destroyed by heat and tidal forces, and is then kicked out through an encounter with a gas giant. Also, planets are not "puffed up" by volcanoes. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Is there a place where some one like myself should go to try to dialogue to get a reliable source to characterize in detail my theory as being plausible? Should I start contacting people like the NY Times directly. I have studied astronomy I just did not want to become another person adding to the current theory. In its current form astronomers will never be able to figure out how Planets and Star Systems form by sticking with the answer the group likes best. Someone has to figure out how it actually works and explain it, that is what I am trying to do.

--98.155.14.192 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:HD 40307 g PHL.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HD 40307 g PHL.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I nominated this image for deletion for lacking contextual significance. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added more contextual significance, given the role of this image in highlighting what the planet may realistically be like even though it is an artist's conception and we don't have a direct image of it. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 21:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the changes have improved the rationale but feel free to remove the template, maybe Files for deletion can get more opinion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

have you noticed a reduction in ufo cases ,,,,,in wikipedia section?
hi,,,i noticed that you had some interesting words to say on the ufo talk page,,,,so i was just curious if you've noticed a reduction in ufo cases noted for this year, in the sightings section,,,(its zero (0) for this year),,,,,,,,,,,comment?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "study" of UFOs is pseudoscience, that is, superstition and idiocy that maintains some superficial characteristics of science. UFO sightings increase around areas and at times during which advanced aircraft are being tested. That said, there is nothing that I can say about how many cases of UFO sightings there have been, except that 99.999% of them are probably false. I am the primary author of Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact and while I am by no means a credentialed researcher in the field, I can tell you that extraterrestrial spacecraft in our Solar System (small, robotic ones, not a characteristic UFO) are not out of the picture, and while it's not at all impossible that extraterrestrial intelligence has explored our Solar System, any correlation of this with UFO sightings is a gross oversimplification only meant to bring about mass hysteria in the populace. Wer900 • <sup style="position:relative">talk • coordination<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-16ex;*left:-25ex;">consensus defined 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oh...!
You are making me flush... :o) --Againme (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I didn't link the words "extraterrestrial" and "civilization." So important, yet so easily forgotten. A fresh perspective always helps with such issues. Thanks again for your help. Wer900 • talk 01:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

UFO COMMENT
Fine,how does one explain the Chicago Ohare airport incident of 2006, where all the witnesses where pilots or individuals related to the field. This is just one example, the point being, one probable "CONTACT" is all you need. I agree 90-95% of reports are phony. But how do you explain the Chicago Ohare incident or the other 5% that cant be explained,"Food For Thought"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again Wer900!, sorry to use your UserPage to answer Ozzie. Hi Ozzie. Many cases that are sometimes presented as a "perfect case" actually are far from that. The O'Hare incident was not a smoking gun either: 8 to 12 people claimed to have seen an object, 6 to 24 feet in diameter, 1500 to 1900 feet in the air. That shows that we have to place little value on anecdotal evidence. As cops say often, if you have four witnesses, you are going to have four different stories. There is not even a photo or a radar reading. Try to imagine looking at something 2 meters long and 500 meters high... it is like watching a person from four blocks away... so small and far away, it could have been anything... --Againme (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a JAL incident with radar readings and witnesses, if you are now going to bring that up, but it's more likely then not a secret military aircraft under development. There are likely to be extraterrestrial probes in our Solar System for observation purposes, but no large spacecraft designed to directly contact us. Wer900 • talk 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)q
 * I agree 99% with what Wer900 just said,,,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Oslo Bowl
Damn you're fast! I added a third-party reference now, my fault for not sandboxing it first! :P κаллэмакс 22:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, just remove the PROD tag, nothing bad will happen. Good luck on Wikipedia :). Wer900 • talk 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and thank you! Been a member since '05, but I haven't been active for a while, so I'm a wee bit rusty... κаллэмакс 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should've looked at your contribution history - I thought you were a newbie, but you were not. Congratulations anyway on making it this far. Wer900 • talk 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. Happy new year! κаллэмакс 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK Conflict of Interest
Wer900, I'm sure you didn't know, but it's considered a conflict of interest for the person who nominated an article to be the same person promoting that article to a prep area. For that matter, the person who approves it isn't supposed to promote it either. At each step, there's supposed to be someone new rechecking it to make sure the article does indeed qualify. In this case being bold was not a good idea. I have to say I do like the hook, and expect it to make it to the front page in due course. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another user had already reviewed the article and approved of it being promoted; as this is not a Gibraltar-related article I think it can move forward. If you or anyone else may want to remove it, they shouldn't be afraid to do so. Wer900 • talk 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything to prevent it from moving forward, but you can't be the one to move it. At this point, you need to be patient: someone will select it, though it probably won't happen immediately. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "there is a cabal"
I read with interest your comments at the Village Pump and reviewed the associated page in your userspace. It's a shame that proposals like yours are so regularly shot down; it's a bit odd that the free encyclopedia discourages free sharing of pro-reform opinions. Well, at any rate, thanks for your efforts to better the encyclopedia through your proposals and advocacy of reform. <font color="Cyan" face="Verdana">dci &#124; <font color="purple" face= "Times New Roman"> TALK   22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A word or two of advice
I was reading over your cabal comments, and the discussion they have instigated. You've commented several times on a "cabal" of Wikipedia editors, who allegedly wield power over the community while establishing anarchic non-governance as the norm. I agree with you entirely that it's necessary to reform governance here, and to move away from suspicion of the vote and of democratic decision-making. Though consensus is often a reasonable way of coming to conclusions, particularly on article content, voting would be a much better way to see who the community (not a vocal or obstructive minority) want in positions of trust, and what the community wants to see happen. That said, I would veer away from attacking the alleged cabal; these editors, from my experiences and in my view, are not deliberately trying to do evil. Policy-writing and maintenance is an integral part of a community where order is present, and Wikipedia policy "gurus", to further overuse the expression, aren't necessarily malicious or malevolent. Instead, focusing on the weaknesses of the current structure and the obvious benefits of reformed governance might win you more support from the broader community.

Your dedication to change is admirable; keep up the excellent work. <font color="Cyan" face="Verdana">dci &#124; <font color="purple" face= "Times New Roman"> TALK   00:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to do that; perhaps by veering away from the notion of a cabal I could move forward. Sure, there are many editors who are rude and unproductive, only wishing to gain from the plight of others in the sixth and seventh circles of Hell. Policymaking is, understandably, an essential element of our community, but it should by no means distract editors from their primary aims - to build an encyclopedia. Wer900 • talk 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

 * Thanks for joining! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Given the new Main Page featuring of TAFI I am sure this project will be successful. Wer900 • talk 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

UFO
Hi we exchanged a couple of words on this subject, I was wondering what your opinion of the Exeter incident 1965 is,there were a lot of credible witnesses?thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was likely a military aircraft operation. I looked over the Wikipedia page on it, and even though listed as "unexplained" because of multiple credible eyewitnesses, it almost certainly (99.9%) a military operation in my mind. The eyewitnesses did not have radar, telescopes, or any other equipment that would support their premature UFO determination. A word of advice - there is no need for the excessive number of commas that come with your comments usually. Wer900 • talk 02:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * do you think area 51 has any ufo debris?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No extraterrestrial spacecraft or parts thereof are likely to be located at Area 51. True, it is a military base and it is extremely secretive. However, the fact that UFO sightings seem to prefer air force and naval bases above all other locations points to any "UFO wreckage" being of military origin. A graph of UFO sightings shows that they seemed to pick up around 2005, when China began to rise more rapidly (and thus, in the US government's eyes, became more militarily powerful, thus driving it to create more experimental aircraft.) Also, I see no reason why extraterrestrials would want to reveal themselves to us very obviously; they probably have probes in our Solar System for observation purposes (and future diplomacy, once we are advanced enough), but these are probably disguised as something mundane like space junk. Wer900 • talk 03:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * your opinion is always interesting,,thanks,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Phobos Surveyor
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PH2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

HighBeam
Hey, sorry to be the bearer of bad news... Though your application was perfect and your account fully approved, we ran out of access codes 7 short of the total who signed up in round 6. I've gone ahead and moved you to the top of the list for round 7. If and as soon as we are given access to more accounts, you will be first to receive it. If you need help accessing sources, WikiProject Resource Exchange is a great place to go, or for HighBeam specifically, you might try asking one of the other 1000 editors who have HighBeam access this year. Again, I'm sorry, and I'll keep pushing for more access to these valuable resources. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Space Industries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mars mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again!
Do you think that you could kindly expand SEVENDIP a little? Greetings! --Againme (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly I would like to. I'll look online and see if there's any more research that can be done on it. Wer900 • talk 01:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Great. I think it's an article that could serve fairly well with just four or five paragraphs... --Againme (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

russian meteor
so much for early warning,that rock could have leveled any big city, yet it went un-noticed (btw, how can one trust the government to be on top of everything or know anything {i.e. u.f.o.'s} when it cant detect something coming straight at them, even if their life depended on it, and some day it might,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are simply too many near-Earth asteroids to identify each and every one. These bodies are so dim that they are very difficult to identify. Compounding the problem, the incident in Russia was with a relatively small body which wouldn't have been detected until it was, say, a few hours away from impact, much less have its trajectory predicted. That said, the Russian meteor incident was not an alien craft and while extraterrestrials probably have observed our Solar System (from afar or with Solar System probes) I see no reason why they would want to influence human culture or society, if they're benevolent or otherwise bound by a "Galactic Code" of some sort. Besides, even if they were malevolent I could see no gain among equal civilizations that they would get from destroying the Earth or affecting humanity in any way. Wer900 • talk 00:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cosmic ray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cosmic ray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideas and Discoveries (magazine)
You nominated this article, which is a new print magazine published by Bauer Media Group, for speedy deletion less than half an hour after it was created, but it does not fit the criteria specified. Please see further information on the talk page. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Felix McTeigue page
In the last hour you deleted the page I created for producer, composer and arranger Felix McTeigue, stating it not being of significance or importance. Felix McTeigue is the son of Maggie Roche of famous 70s-present folk-pop group The Roches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roches

He is a producer and composer who wrote two songs currently on the music charts: "Jumped Right" by Dallas Smith and "Wreck You" recorded by Heidi Newfield. Heidi's record debuted at #10 on billboard album charts and "Jumped right In" went to #4 on canadia country charts and #1 on canadian CMT. Here are links to those pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_Right_In

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6DB1430F932A2575BC0A96E9C8B63

This signifies Felix McTeigue's importance. I am recreating the article for Felix McTeigue. I am a new user to Wikipedia and this is my first page. I would appreciate it if you do not delete this accurate, appropriate, truthful and musically significant page I am recreating.

Please advise. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlingsjm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Recreate the article with appropriate sourcing, and if there are any problems with admins just tell me. Wer900 • talk 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Just recreated the article and fixed the links to the appropriate wikipedia pages. I'm trying to fix the sourcing now. If it is not formatted correctly, please edit and reformat the source links rather than delete the entire article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlingsjm (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Arctic  Kangaroo  04:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
Could I just say a big thank you for rewriting the lede on this article. This is much improved and is spot-on. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I wrote the original lede, though, a tenuous compromise between various groups which could by no means be ideal. Wer900 • talk 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:TESS satellite 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:TESS satellite 2.jpg. 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) 04:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Resuscitating WikiProject Astronomy
Thanks for the message. Have you monitored the project watchlist for activity? Looks pretty active. I think the problem is that the bots are no longer active so it looks like the bot-updated lists have come to a stop, not the project. Also, don't forget, North America has Easter vacation! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I live in North America, so yes, I have Easter vacation as well. However, nobody is really collaborating much on that project, so it's just a place to advertise your one-person crusades in the hopes that someone will help. Making new bots would definitely help us to maintain the project as well. Wer900 • talk 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got several ideas, but I've been keeping them to myself because the community is stubborn beyond belief and resistant to change. I'm afraid that unless we recruit new editors who think differently than the current set of editors set in their ways, there's nothing we can do. Administrators are the worst of the bunch.  The sooner we distribute rights and permissions to anyone needing them, the sooner we can eliminate the IRC/cabal-like tendencies that encourage cliques and blocs to attempt to manipulate the wiki from behind the scenes. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement echoes a line of thinking which has become more popular among content-builders as of late, myself included. I had in the past written an essay about the "IRC/cabal-like" behaviors that characterize those who actually run this encyclopedia. These individuals' behavior has been catastrophic&mdash;including such idiocy as this&mdash;and absolutely needs to be stopped. I'd suggested several times on the Village Pump that we create a Wikipedia Assembly of some sort, with elected members holding constitutional authority; however, this was rejected several times, and I was threatened with a topic ban by Beeblerbox for proposing it multiple times per our policy that we should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If there is any "disruption" going on on Wikipedia, it is certainly because of abrasive (and sometimes abusive) admins and their lackeys. Most of my essays are about Wikipedia governance reform. Unfortunately, it will take some sort of existential shock before anyone on Wikipedia decides to ditch the techno-libertarian fantasy. Wer900 • talk 00:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kim Stanley Robinson called it by its true name, "primate dominance hierarchies". Unless you have an artificial, social deconditioning agent that breaks down these hierarchies every time they emerge, you will keep seeing this kind of dominance hierarchy naturally emerge on its own.  In the beginning, it is probable that the few early users could not anticipate this state of affairs, nor might they even care. In fact, I predict that given the demographics (techno-libertarian, objectivist, etc.) they might want to encourage it based on their own belief in the Randian hero. Plus, you have the militaristic, command-oriented corporate model projected from the top down as a "natural" paradigm that can't be questioned.  The solution is to identify the deconditioning agent and to embed it in the fabric of Wikipedia. Think about that for a few days before you reply. I've actually identified it (as early as 1992) and I know what it is. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what the deconditioning agent is. I've thought about it, and I can only give uncertain answers. Is it governance with authority? A demonstration of a non-libertarian system which works? Organization of the masses (content builders) against the dominant (primate dominance hierarchies)? Anyway, there is more about the content-builder vs. primate-dominance-hierarchy divide that I'd like you (and Wikipedia) to know. I've heard content builders being told to just "develop content" rather than try to create an encyclopedia with authoritative governance to create that environment. Such statements are not unlike telling women to "go back to the kitchen." The attitude of the PDHs (as well as their very existence) is at best out of tune with any attempt to run the encyclopedia, and is at worst fiddling while Wikipedia burns.
 * Excellent point! We need an environment that is conducive to research, collaboration, and composition.  When vandals and POV pushers interrupt this process we expect the admins to deal with it but often times we are left with Keystone Kops running around, hitting the wrong people on the heads with their clubs.  As for the deconditioning agent, I refer to any thing that breaks down the status quo of what we are led to believe is natural and normal, in this case, rights and permissions that separate editors and bolster power hierarchies in a wiki environment that works against such stratification.  It's a bit ironic, don't you think?  Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You speak of a project without hierarchy, and I agree with that (though with several important reservations). To start with, there should be some sort of elected assembly in order to create and enforce consistent policies throughout Wikipedia and end the power of the PDHs over their local fiefdoms. Secondly, adminship should become a professional post, rather than a title of nobility; all admins should be subject to periodic reexamination by a new Administrative Review Committee (a subcommittee of ArbCom) to see if their behavior has met all standards, to review all complaints lodged regarding the administrator during the time period in question (or longer, at its discretion) and should decide whether the administrator deserves continued adminship, probation for a period of time, suspension, desysopping (more severe punishments must be decided by ArbCom), or honorable discharge (in case we no longer need that admin's services). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, content review boards should be established. On controversial topics where POVs can run high, the Content Dispute Appeals Committee (another subcommittee of ArbCom) can create a content review board at the request of two or more involved editors. If disagreements with the decisions of these boards exist, they can be appealed to the CDAC, whose decision on the matter is final until and unless new information appears in reliable sources contradicting the ruling of the CDAC. Though this may seem like an unnecessary proliferation of bureaucracy, we already have something worse&mdash;the primate dominance hierarchies. Only about 40 additional editors will be involved in these new committees, and will spend most of their time in other parts of the encyclopedia anyway, so the damage shouldn't be too large. However, these proposals will ensure the safety of content-builders on Wikipedia and may finally slow the attrition plaguing us, allowing our editor base to expand at a rate slightly more commensurate to our wealth of articles and our number of viewers. Hierarchy would also be reduced: these 40 editors would replace a hundred or so self-appointed warlords who do more lethal damage than any bureacyracy. Care to help me develop these proposals more specifically, and get other content builders on board? Wer900 • talk 23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting ideas, but I think it ignores the reason Wikipedia has succeeded. It didn't need an elected assembly to enforce policies and it didn't require experts or committees.  We don't need more bureaucracy we need less.  To quote George Carlin, "I love individuals.  I hate groups of people.  I hate a group of people with a common purpose.  Because, pretty soon they have little hats and armbands and fight songs.  And a list of people they are going to visit at 3 AM." Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that instead of making statements about how much "bureaucracy" we need, we should stick to specific problems and find solutions for them. I stated that there should be a subcommittee of ArbCom to review admins periodically, which does make sense in order to solve the problem of administrator nobility and turn them into professionals who do not have a 99% chance of retaining their posts in spite of grave abuse of content builders. As I mentioned, a content review committee system would help to ensure accuracy in contentious articles and stop POV pushers on all sides of an issue. And an elected assembly could create unified principles for the execution of policies, as well as coordinate editing drives, outreach efforts, and editor retention on our encyclopedia. These are all very specific problems with very specific and reasonable solutions. Would my proposals create a new layer of bureaucracy? Yes. However, these proposals will also dismantle numerous private bureaucracies&mdash;abusive administrators who are above the rules, POV-pushers, and the groups on this encyclopedia whose sole purpose is to debate ad nauseam (at least for content builders)&mdash;which many do not recognize as bureaucracies simply because they are not "official" or well-defined, even though they have as much potential to encumber the encyclopedia. The lack of coordination between all of these proverbial gears (PDHs) in our encyclopedic machine means that at any given time, some section of the encyclopedia fails to work at its best. At the very least, a centralized, well-defined bureaucracy, rather than numerous private ones, would generate huge efficiency improvements by bringing all bureaucratic functions currently assumed by unaccoutable PDHs into one accountable organization. Wer900 • talk 01:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read Animal Farm? This is same shit different day territory. Bureaucracy is the enemy.  If you want to make a list of problems on a subpage, I can discuss how to address them without the need for new, exclusive committees or any other type of structure. Basically, any kind of controls that we do have is to protect us from the pathological 1% who just want to watch everything burn.  Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the divide et impera tactics of the PDHs have worked so well that there's really no other way other than new bureaucracy. At least the new one will be accountable and well-defined. Wer900 • talk 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the concept of self-government? It's basically the endpoint of all political philosophies. The new way of managing large communities like Wikipedia isn't to create and reinforce bureaucracy, it's to destroy it. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned three specific problems: lack of professionalism and abuse of content-builders by administrators, excessive clamor by POV-pushers who are damaging our credibility, and a group of PDHs who controls the whole process for its own benefit, to the detriment of our content builders and workers. What ways would you suggest to resolve these problems while leaving only minimal bureaucracy in its wake? I made my suggestions, which would create new bureaucracy, but an accountable and well-defined one as opposed to a host of private ones. Wer900 • talk 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's easier to discuss one specific problem at a time. Then, we can move on to the next one.  Let's start with "professionalism".  What do you mean by it and what examples can you provide showing its lack? If this is an amateur site, how can we talk about professionalism?  Do you mean civility and common sense or something else?  Are you proposing new standards or a revision of the editorial code of conduct?  Be specific in your reply. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
When I discuss administrator professionalism, I am speaking of basic things which administrators were elected to do&mdash;they should not be abusive toward editors of the encyclopedia, they should not be involved in cases where they have conflicts of interest, and they should exercise wise and prudent judgment. I suggested the creation of a subcommittee of ArbCom to periodically review all administrators and suspend, place on probation, or desysop any admin whose actions are unbecoming of their position (as detailed in existing policies and guidelines, and all new ones which the community may approve). This would really not be a large bureacracy at all; five or six people would replace a whole assortment of mini-cabals and make the admin corps act more effectively, with a heavy hand on those who need it and an easing of restrictions on those who don't ned it. Wer900 • talk 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the problem. I don't believe in a separate class of editors known as "administrators". I believe everyone should be professional and should act according to our codes of conduct and that if anyone needs permissions necessary to perform their chosen function, they should be able to easily acquire them upon request.  Conversely, it should be very easy to remove these rights if they are abused.  Finally, the entire concept of system operators comes from a time before networked personal computing, and needs to be put to rest.  We don't need another technocracy, what we need is a level foundation for allowing everyone the opportunity to lend a hand and to reach their full potential.  To that end, we need to distribute rights and permissions to those have a need for them, and we need to remove them from users who have abused our trust. What we don't need to do is discuss it for the next ten years. Contrary to popular religious beliefs and what the institution of the state tells us, I believe that men and women are inherently good not bad, and will act in their best interests and the interest of others.  Most people want to do the right thing. However, there is a small minority of people who will prey on the weak and consolidate their power to use it over others in a harmful way to dominate and control and the policies must serve to protect us and limit their reach.  As for the bad, the vandals and the POV pushers seem to be encouraged by all the attention the admins give them on the noticeboards, which is why I've repeatedly called for the closing of those boards and a refocusing on content and brief reporting. Negative behavior on Wikipedia is constantly reinforced while good editors are driven away by the nonsense.  This is the squeaky wheel gets the grease scenario, but eventually the other wheels stop working, quietly, without notice. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't believe that people are somehow "inherently bad", your system would lead to great disorder very fast. In fact, I feel that you are suggesting the same recipe which put us in our current situation in the first place. Who is giving out permissions? Who is revoking them? Who is enforcing policies and guidelines? Who is making the same? For you, the answer to all of these seems to be "the community," a sentiment which reverberates throughout Wikipedia. But not only would putting every topic for debate in front of thousands or even hundreds (or even tens) of users be monumentally inefficient, it would eventually give way to the mini-cabals and abusive admins that we know today and hate so dearly. A city won't build itself or maintain itself, so we need to tear down the burnt ruins and lift a new city. We can't tear down the ruins and leave spare building materials, hoping that they will build themselves. In actuality, some people will construct palaces for themselves, content builders like us will continue to live in makeshift hovels, and the sleek, modern city will never come to pass. I don't believe in a class system on the encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in effective, accountable, and centralized governance. Sooner or later content builders will tire of the endless debates and mortgage their collective future to the same private bureaucracies who control that future now. And they'll be called "the community" just the same. Wer900 • talk 00:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Requests for permissions. We already have a permissions request system in place. History shows there is no such thing as an "accountable" governance, and your use of the term "centralized" is anachronistic.  From the 1960s onward, the trend in governance is decentralization, and Wikipedia is one example of that trend in practice.  Trying to force centralization on Wikipedia is like trying to put shoes on a snake.  Have you thought this cunning plan through? Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The people giving these permissions are administrators, and if anyone wants to start giving permissions they should be periodically screened by some body in order to eliminate breaches of trust. A group of editors who are experienced in that regard but selected by the community would be far better than the "community" (ie, the private bureaucracies I mention time and time again). Wer900 • talk 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Your problem is hardly unique to Wikipedia. My answer is freedom and liberty require eternal vigilance. It's a constant struggle. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Asteroid Retrieval and Utilization at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Asteroid Retrieval and Utilization
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! It's okay, though, Skylab II wasn't my magnum opus. I certainly appreciate it, though. Wer900 • talk 03:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Habitable zone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Europa and Enceladus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehricke article
Here's the article by Ehricke from the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society that you requested in December. Let me know when you get it. &mdash;innotata 01:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've downloaded the file; thank you for your persistence in searching printed archives! Wer900 • talk 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible pitfall in Wikipedia governance
Just a note to say that I liked your post on Jimbo's page, and I also liked your Consensus and Cabal essays. You can indeed see POV-pushing cabals at work here. LittleBen (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delayed response. I would actually try to galvanize the editing community against this, but then I'd be violating WP:CANVAS&mdash;an illegitimate rule whose sole purpose is to protect the powers of easily-organized small cabals and POV-pushing groups. Wer900 • talk 20:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cosmic ray/GA1
Wer900, in case you didn't notice, the review was completed on April 17. Please give the nomination your attention as soon as possible; it is the oldest active GA nomination. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't harsh my mellow!
Dude! Did you just do a cut and paste move on CHZ? Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did. I'm going to try and fix this. Please don't edit these articles for a bit. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you were thinking when you did this. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed by an admin. You may want to explain your rationale for the move in a bit more detail on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I tried to cite the diff it was copied from as a URL. Wer900 • talk 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the future, when you want to move an article to a new name and you can't, or if you want to move a new version from your userspace to an old name and also move an old article to the old name, you'll need to have an administrator help you. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm still not seeing a link to the move rationale discussion. This is going to come up again, so you'll need to explain it on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Galactic habitable zone
The DYK project (nominate) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Wer900 • talk 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555745651 your edit] to Blanketing effect may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Thanks!
Hi, thank you for helping with the writing of Blanketing effect. I've slightly modified the last sentence because I thought it was a bit unclear. Let me know if you think further improvements should be made. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome! Wer900 • talk 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic Ray GA
Unfortunately, I've had to fail the cosmic ray GA since many paragraph still aren't sourced, and the review's just been open for too long. Once the sources are found and inserted, feel free to renominate it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

your comments on Jimbo's page
is "creating stronger institutions" really an activity for Jimbo to be undertaking, do you think? I would suggest that that is for us as the community to do for ourselves. I have some vague notions, I was wondering if maybe you had some ideas as well? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wer900, it would be great if you would just confirm on the ANI report that you made a mistake and are now dropping the inquiry. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Wer900, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sunjammer (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Russavia
As you will see on my talkpage, Russavia has requested that I ask you to refrain from posting any further comments about him on Wikipedia. I think this is a reasonable request under the circumstances. While I understand the broader points you are trying to make, I think you can make them without making comments that can reasonably be perceived as personal attacks on other contributors. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll comply with your injunction for sure. However, Russavia omitted that the context of the "parasite" statement was also available to other Wikipediocracy members (I won't link the thread because it outs Russavia), and therefore his statement that the "'clarification' is bollocks" is itself not true. Again, I won't comment negatively on other users as you prescribe. Wer900 • talk 22:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PK Meher
I am very happy to kept my user page alive. Please make my user page as Article Page of Wikipedia.

Hi.. I am Prakash Kumar Meher I am elder son of Kailash Chandra Meher of Odisha, India. I am a sincere user of your site. I have a request to you that "Please convert my user page to a fresh Wikipedia Article Page". I think I have sufficient stuff to be a Article of Wikipedia. Plz visit my early life details in following site/blogger.

Prakash Kumar Meher (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that your page follows all the policies of Wikipedia. To begin with, you need to demnostrate notability, or extensive documentation of your article in reliable sources, such as fact-checked newspapers and magazines, not personal blos. The information in your article must all be verifiable to said reliable sources, or it cannot be accepted. Third, your article should be free of conflicts of interest. You should have consulted myself or some other Wikipedia editor before making your article, as it is about yourself and thus is less likely to maintain a neutral point of view, in which all viewpoints on you mentioned in reliable sources are fairly represented. With this said, I hope that you stay on Wikipedia, provided that your future articles follow the policies I listed above. For the time being, your page redirects to your father Kailash Chandra Meher's article. I don't think that at this time I can turn your blog post into a true article. Give me some reliable sources of the sort I mentioned above (they can be online, provided they're fact-checked) and I should be able to do something. Wer900 • talk 18:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circumstellar habitable zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceres (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lone Signal
Hello! Your submission of Lone Signal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jetstreamer Talk 23:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the email
Large, sweeping measures don't work here. As you can see from the kind of stereotypical response I got from JamesBWatson, most admins don't actually investigate anything, they just block people to shut them up. The real problems go ignored for years on end. In fact, that's my primary issue with Wikipedia administration, they don't actually do anything except push the mop to spread the dirt around to make the place "look" clean. This is a common bureaucratic tactic and also, interestingly enough, the unwritten esprit de corps of the techno-libertarian admin demographic. Don't actually do anything, just push the dirt around. The bottom line is, the only way you can get anything done in a large, leader-less bureaucracy that lacks imagination and vision is to make numerous, small incremental changes to the underlying policies and guidelines. I suggest you identify the rules you want to change and start there. More importantly, learn to data mine from the database dumps and you can form close associations with users of similar interests who will help you accomplish your goals. I've never been interested in doing that because it's 1) too easy, and 2) I have no personal interest in power relationships, but you seem to have the interest and will to change Wikipedia. If you can briefly list the areas you would like to see changed, I can point you in the right direction. Keep in mind, the push back will be enormous (and expected) but you can change things if you have the energy and the desire, both of which I lack. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What do I want to change? Pretty much everything that's not a core content policy. To start with, the child protection policy should no longer protect pedophiles. Beyond that, I'm looking at a near-complete replacement of dispute resolution and arbitration policy, to create organized magistrates' courts before ArbCom rather than leaving everything stuck at AN/I. In addition, I would like to see the creation of proper editorial boards for controversial topics and biographies of living persons, as well as an Administrator Control Board to hire, control, sanction, and fire admins as necessary. Overall, I hope to trim the existing bureaucracy and make it less of an amoeba and more of a proper multicellular organism with specialized organ systems. I'm not interested in power relationships for my own benefit, but rather I would like to collect enough evidence of negligence, unequal treatment, and corruption to neuter existing power players and open the door for a new order as I have described above. Wer900 • talk 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most "New Orders" tend to look like Animal Farm, in other words, "new boss, same as the old 'boss', or, "same shit different day". I don't think it will work.  As for trimming the bureaucracy, creating editorial boards, and fixing dispute resolution, I can talk about those things.  Why isn't the child protection policy working and what's preventing people from strengthening it?  Also, I think the way Wikipedia is structured is less like a single organism and more like a decentralized, distributed hive of worker bees.  Again, think about what I said about small, incremental changes. When you look at history, it isn't the large events that change anything, even though we are often sold that myth in schools.  It's actually the tiny, almost insignificant events that change the world, in ways most people can't quite see.  More recently, I'm reminded of a quote from Cloud Atlas: "My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?" If you know where to make those drops count, you can create a sea change. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully understand where you're coming from. However, if I surround myself with editors who are willing to relieve me of my powers when appropriate, I think it should be fine. Revolutions generally succeed if the revolutionaries resign their powers at the appropriate time. Small changes, I feel, will not help here, as they would quickly be overshadowed by bureaucratic idiocies before seeing the sun. Wer900 • talk 04:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look around at the world, at nature, and draw your inspiration there. Do people with power ever give it up?  The only revolution that ever succeeds is the revolution in the mind, not outside of it.  The only way to change the world is to change how you think about it. And if one person changes the way they think, they may change others, and these small changes will eventually cascade.  What emerges is something new and different, but it only arises and survived by virtue of small changes which lay the initial foundation. Sometimes, if these changes are negative, this tactic is called the boiling frog or creeping normalcy. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I, for one, feel that Wikipedia simply lacks the time. The reason my proposed revolution will be better is that ArbCom will have jurisdiction the whole way through, with expanded theoretical and actual powers. Even if I become hopelessly corrupt I will still be bannable and blockable by it. Besides, most revolutions fail, but a few are successful. Wikipedia is so short on time with th current system that I feel it is worth 90% odds of failure to attempt a change. Wer900 • talk 05:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To limit power, you have to decentralize it. Wikipedia administration doesn't work because it is too centralized. You're proposing to increase this centralization. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed reforms would merely codifying a degree of centralization, enough to stop the existing de facto centralization of power by power players. Power will be more distributed. Wer900 • talk 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wer900, centralization is a non-starter. If you want to talk about reforms, it has to be decentralized.  That's how this site (and others like it) are designed.  Now, if you give me a brief example of a reform you have in mind I can show you how this works.  I like the idea of a decentralized editorial board, and we can easily implement that or use existing framework to make that happen.  Tell me what you were getting at with your idea on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Homework assignment
Here's an issue that interests me: why is the user page for tagged as a sockpupet, but  and  are not? All three users are blocked indefinitely, but only one user page (Belchfire) informs editors of this fact. I've previously raised this on the noticeboards only to get replies from admins amounting to "these aren't the droids you're looking for". Can you address our existing policies and guidelines to explain why the rules aren't being enforced across the board? And, how would you change the relevant rules to address this? Or would you just leave them alone? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Add this line somewhere in the blocking policy: "All users subject to long-term or permanent sanction should have their user pages blanked and replaced with the appropriate sanction template. Such a template should include the name of the sanctioning individual or body and a reference to the location where the block rationale was given. All sanctioned users should also have entries in the appropriate list of sanctioned users." That's pretty unequivocal, I think. Wer900 • talk 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel that blanking & relabelling may often be appropriate but blocked/banned editors are still human (even if we disagree with them, and I certainly disagree with LGR &c). So, mandatory blanking may be a little harsh (though it should certainly be an option). I do think it would be appropriate to mandate some kind of tag, so that other editors aren't left in the dark about why the sanctioned editor has stopped editing. bobrayner (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bob. Do you have any theories as to why Belchfire is tagged as indefinitely blocked as a sock, but Little green rosetta was not?  My working theory based on my own observations (and I could be completely wrong here) is that Belchfire burned his bridges with the admins that were supporting him, and because he lost their support, he was bagged and tagged appropriately.  However, LGR was very chummy with several admins and knew how to schmooze quite well and never burned his bridges, so he never got tagged.  I don't know if this is true for Qworty as well, but I seem to remember that Qworty had many admins in his corner.  If anything I'm saying here has merit, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds plausible, but I don't know the whole story as I haven't had time for this particular NPOV-battlefield recently. A different NPOV-battlefield demands my attention, alas. There may just be a trivial explanation - maybe more abrasive editors are more likely to get blanking or big red warning messages; maybe the blocking admins might have different opinions on the merits of tagging/blanking, or something like that. However, spending hours trying to understand the full history and trawling old drama-board threads might not have very good ROI; blocked editors are still blocked, and there are plenty of other active problems out there just waiting to be fixed. 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. In that case, can we think outside the box on this?  What kind of alternate replacement system can you envisage? Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure; you could probably make better suggestions than me. It would probably be good to require some kind of tag (or category?) on the userpage of anybody subject to long-term sanctions, so that other editors actually know what's going on, but it shouldn't be framed as a badge of shame. Preferably linking to a relevant discussion (SPI, AN/I thread, whatever) if it exists, and it won't always exist. Are there any possible exceptions - cases where a tag would be a bad idea? bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Granting leeway with tags is merely an unnecessary grant of administrator discretion. That opens the door for politics as we have seen with Little Green Rosetta and Russavia. Wer900 • talk 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lone Signal
The DYK project (nominate) 16:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ecumenopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The correct format for cite arxiv is. You forget the eprint=.

Spaaaaace!

 * Thank you! I deeply appreciate your words of kindness.Wer900 • talk 19:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, of course! I knew I'd run into you somewhere before! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh

 * However, particularly advanced powers may use methods, including faster-than-light travel, to make centralized administration more effective.

Are you trolling me? :) Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. The sentence was just convoluted, and therefore I decided to fix it. :-) Wer900 • talk 23:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It still sounds quite silly. :) You are assuming (anthropomorphically) that ET would use centralized administration. However, when we look at the natural world, we see the most successful life forms using decentralized systems, like ant colonies. See swarm intelligence as only one example. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that we are also becoming a lot like ants in that sense, with the phenomenal rise of the Internet. However, we must also accept that humans are not merely parts of collectives, but have individual characteristics as well, far more than ant colonies and schools of fish. Advanced ET, with sufficiently-advanced brains, would be as interconnected as ever, but not necessarily a hivemind like the aforementioned examples. Wer900 • talk 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the article on microbiome. Is it our individual characteristics that make us who we are, or our symbiotic relationships with other organisms? 100 trillion bacteria living inside you; are you in control or are they?  You are an individual superorganism. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, full well, that I am a superorganism. However, we must also realize that even ant colonies have queens. Wer900 • talk 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A notice
IRC is not the scope of the current arbitration case, and the personal attacks and sniping are not helpful anywhere. If you have no evidence to provide on on-wiki activities of either of the parties, please desist from editing the talk pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In case there's any confusion
Not sure if you just picked the wrong template here, were trying to make a point, or were confused, but I'm not an admin. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weren't you an admin at some point? I didn't know you'd resigned. That's all, I wasn't trying to make a point in that itself. Wer900 • talk 04:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. I have the bit on Wikidata and a couple of test projects, but I've never even run here (and I don't plan on doing so until I've done some good content work and am able to make the required mental commitments). There must be some long-ago user who people confuse me with... I've only been here since November. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be Francophilie&Androphilie. Wer900 • talk 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...That's my old username (and is clearly stated as such on my userpage and talkpage). Only had it for two-three months, though; I've been & since January. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  04:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PinkAmpersand,
 * Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today!
 * <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pink&, I think that you are willing to take the necessary steps to become a good Wikipedian. I think that if you want to truly help the encyclopedia, you should do the following:
 * Stop posting at drama boards like AN/I unless absolutely necessary, and refrain from participating in community-ban lynch mobs.
 * Write actual content. Put in the extra time to do research on deep and diverse subjects, as opposed to mere semi-automated vandalism correction or gnoming. Don't stick to writing stubs and redirects, but rather create long and rich articles that provide an in-depth view of the subject worthy of an FA.
 * Participate in WikiProjects in subjects that interest you, but do not let "community participation" overshadow true content work.
 * Treat ArbCom as a court of last resort, rather than a ticket to power.
 * Speak to other newly-joined individuals who primarily gnome, edit-war, and post at drama boards or their user talk pages, and try to convince them that there are better ways to serve the encyclopedia.
 * Happy editing! Wer900 • talk 18:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I reject the notion that gnomish edits don't "truly help the encyclopedia", but I do agree with you that content work is important. That said, I think if you check Special:Contribs/PinkAmpersand (and go past my recent ArbCom activity), you'll be surprised by the percentage of my time spent in mainspace. I hardly ever go to AN or ANI these days (see, ), and this is the first time I've ever filed an arbitration request, or really even been involved with ArbCom proceedings in a meaningful way. I don't think I've voted to community-ban anyone who wasn't a sockmaster; hell, I opposed banning Qworty! (Though it was a weak, tentative oppose, and I didn't lose any sleep over his ban.) — PublicAmpers <font color="FF1493">&#38; (main account • talk • block) 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
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.


 * Chandra Wickramasinghe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Channel 5


 * Su-Shu Huang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Guggenheim Foundation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galactic habitable zone
The article Galactic habitable zone you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Galactic habitable zone for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- 03:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Technosignature
Hello! Your submission of Technosignature at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DoctorKubla (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chandra Wickramasinghe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesus College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Technosignature
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits at a Case Workshop page
Hey Wer900, if you didn't realize, when you want to reply to an arbitrator's comment on the Workshop page, please refrain from forming a threaded comment in that section labeled Comments by Arbitrators. Rather, reply to them in the section labeled comment by others. Threaded discussions are otherwise okay, but just something to note. I have moved your comments accordingly. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Blue Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beant Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on proposed decision talk page
I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FKiefer.Wolfowitz_and_Ironholds%2FProposed_decision&action=view&diff=568163282 removed] a comment you made on the proposed decision talk page, as it breaches the conditions set for this case. Consider this an only warning per the case notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
As required.... Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galactic habitable zone
The article Galactic habitable zone you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Galactic habitable zone for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Sure, my edit was "disruptive". However,, did you take time to realize how disruptive Jimmy Wales's edit was? He stopped the flow of a legitimate discussion because it was politically uncomfortable for him and the Wikipedia True Believers™, and I did what I could to find it out. Sure, he may hide behind the fact that it's his "private talk page" and all, but the truth is that he "holds court" on the page and it is more of a discussion point for Wikipedia politics than a place for inquiries directed at and regarding Jimmy Wales himself. I would advise you to read this Wikipediocracy blog post, that I wrote (that doesn't out anyone) in order to list and explain Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions. Wer900 • talk 00:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, I don't read wikipedocracy tripe. I don't care about what is Right or Wrong morally here, your edit was disruptive, and that's all that matters. there are better ways to explain a concern. such as emailing jimbo. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very strong suggestion
I will say this as bluntly as I dare, please take it as a very strong recommendation from a friend... '''You need to stay the fuck off the AN/I page and you need to stop mentioning Mr. B. in any context whatsoever, effective immediately. As it stands, you are doing an excellent job of self-immolation...''' Carrite (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wer900. I have to echo Tim's sentiments. Admittedly the 'NOTHERE' stuff is laughable - I remember your gem Asteroid Retrieval and Utilization as being one of the easiest DYK reviews I've undertaken and I'm very impressed with your work on Galactic Habitable Zone - but please don't give them any more ammunition. You're an excellent contributor and it would be a shame to see you banned. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 06:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi wer, I read your comment on the ANI where you referred to your apology to me... and in the next breath, said "but the evidence I have on others..... " shows me that you maybe did not learn anything from that unfortunate interaction. The whole place you were coming from with me - the spirit in the doxing correspondence you sent me -- was so dark;  the glee there, in your mutual effort to destroy me, was heart-wrenching ugly ... so malign.  And at the same time, so self-righteous and certain.  Where were you coming from?  You should not trust anything that comes from that dark and twisted place.  You surely didn't end up there intentionally - you somehow lived and reasoned your way into it.   I hope you find a way to live your way out of it.  Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Jytdog, the evidence on the others is not patchy like the "evidence" against you (which I retract in its entirety) but obtainable easily (one of the editors,, has self-identified as Jon Entine, while 's identity can be obtained with a quick Google search). That was who I was referencing. It has nothing to you. Please, let us lay that unfortunate chapter to rest. Wer900 • talk 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your support. Wer900 • talk 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I find your comments directed at or about me and other admins grossly inappropriate. Also, FWIW, an edit count pie chart in no way reflects an editor's work - I've logged 42 hours on Wikipedia this week, not to mention the amount of off-Wiki work I do here and abroad for the movement. I won't hesitate to  say  again  that  there are probably  other 'dark  and twisted' places where such  behaviour is totally  acceptable, and where the main  practice is to  denigrate admins without  cause, but  it's not  here on  Wikipedia. Your content  work  here  may  be extremely  valuable, but  recent  events have demonstrated that  if editors act  negatively  towards Wikipedia at the same time, they  may need to  be subject  to  sanctions - please think  about  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Wer900. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi Wer900, I suggested on AN/I that you should start an ArbCom case against Beeblebrox and the other editors you have problems with. If you then only discuss the problems you have with these editors in that ArbCom case, you won't be accused of "harassment" anymore. I have also seen less than ideal behavior from Beeblebrox, but I do think one has to present all the evidence at the right venue to prevent things from escalating. The whole point is to do something about the problems, not to create new problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If that needs to be done, then so be it. I'm not a fan of the Arbitration Committee as it stands now by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the best we've got in the absence of a real court system. All I have observed on the ANI report on me is drama production by Beebs and his supporters. Wer900 • talk 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interview request: Your work with WP:Snuggle
I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your work with WP:Snuggle and observe your use of it in order to figure out where the tool is and isn't working. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know. Thanks for your consideration. --<span style="display:inline-block;padding:0 .25em;border:1px solid #999;box-shadow:.1em .1em .1em rgba(0,0,0,.5);border-radius:3px;">EpochFail (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Study overview: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle
 * Consent form: meta:Research:Peer_mentorship_and_snuggle/Consent

Your GA nomination of Galactic habitable zone
The article Galactic habitable zone you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Galactic habitable zone for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal regarding you at AN/I
In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding you, I have offered a new proposal. Since you would be affected by this proposal, I am notifying you of it in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 18:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ping
At ANI I commented here and addressed you here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Perhaps I do need to exercise restraint with my accusations, but I have pointed evidence out on the AN/I regarding Beeblebrox's behavior and his self-declared right to be uncivil (which, despite his deletion of the essay, he has not retracted in full, if you read the deletion notice). Meanwhile, and friends continue trying to create dramah by restating the tired old statement that I was "proxy editing" on behalf of banned . I have already shown that to be wrong on several levels; the most that ever came of the "proxy editing" was a chat with  about whether he would take the case (which he declined to do). A subsequent tribunal at AN/I extracted from me a promise not to pursue cases against Mathsci regarding the R&I topic (which, content-wise, I agree with Mathsci strongly). In a bid to come to the center of attention, Mathsci has now started a thread on WP:AE, primarily targeting me for something I didn't even do.  has taken the case; while I strongly disagree with his harsh nature, I do respect the fact that he appears to lack the idiotic, self-serving myopia that Mathsci is trying to give him. Kudos to you, Sandstein. Wer900 • talk 22:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't look so bad. Might I suggest you shut up at this point? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  23:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop
Linking my username. You don't need to give the full set of links every goddamn time you mention someone's name. I didn't need to be pinged top let me know about your statement to arbcom, in which I have no interest and have not been following. So please, stop wikilinkjing my name. I don't know if you just don't understand that it is not needed or if you are deliberately acting like a complete asshole but either way it would be real nice if you would just stop it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I thought that you might have wanted to know about the comment, but if you didn't that's all right with me. Wer900 • talk 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Circumstellar habitable zone
Are you going to put Circumstellar habitable zone through GA at some point? All the work's been done, and starting from a GA would give it a better chance at FA. Regards. Jamesx12345 19:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar!

 * Thank you! I am greatly honored to receive this award. Wer900 • talk 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikilove
Thanks for working on List of planets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft! Best regards Hekerui (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Wer900 • talk 04:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi
As to my edit on potential cultural impact article, if you look at it now, it focuses mostly on Christianity. I wanted to expand on Islam, Mormonism and other faiths which currently are overlooked, while being often surprisingly open to the idea.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like other faiths to be represented, but at the moment Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism, which (at least the middle) seems remarkably open to extraterrestrial life, do not have much specific research, going under the banner of Abrahamic faiths; unfortunately, Christianity, being the dominant religion in the Western society in which the research takes place, has gotten the most attention at the expense of other faiths. Other religions are treated as either "Abrahamic" or "Eastern", and expanding them out into "Mormonism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism" and "Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Sikhism" would not add anything new to the article. For what it's worth, I found this religion-by-religion poll regarding extraterrestrial life, but it focuses on existence rather than impact. In sum, though, there isn't much of a body of research on this topic regarding any other religion in particular than Christianity and its secs.Wer900 • talk 17:47, 13 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 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Awaiting apology
I am awaiting your apology for having made the inaccurate allegation (refuted by Mark Miller) that I deleted a post as in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I recant. Wer900 • talk 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 00:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your account. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  23:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your privileges to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at . The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened?
Contact me so that I can help get you unblocked. If you no longer have the password, create a new account and we will redirect/move this account. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TESS satellite.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TESS satellite.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 18 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 19 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 on 12:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) using Mass message sender.

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 20 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 using mass messaging

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 21 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 22 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 23 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 24 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

TAFI week 22, 2015 update
Please note that Personality is also an article for improvement for week 22, 2015. Thank you. Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 01:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 25 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 06:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 26 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 27 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 18:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 28 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 29 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 30 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 02:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 31 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Wer900:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 32 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes



 * Hello :
 * A discussion is occurring at Change project processes regarding potential changes to the Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject. Your input is welcomed at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI's List of articles



 * Hello Wer900:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding potential changes to the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What if extraterrestrials come to Earth listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What if extraterrestrials come to Earth. Since you had some involvement with the What if extraterrestrials come to Earth redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II



 * Hello Wer900:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

TAFI talk

 * Hello :


 * You are invited to participate in this discussion at the TAFI talk page regarding improving the automation of project processes and management of the project. Your input is appreciated.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on

Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement
<div style="position:relative; margin:0; background-color:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid blue; padding: 1em; color:#082840"> Greetings WikiProject TAFI members!

Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).

If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
 * Adding the new scheduled article to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement and removing the entry from Articles for improvement
 * Set up the schedule pages for the new TAFI, except the adding of an image and caption
 * Adding TAFI to the new article for improvement, remove TAFI from last week's article and add Former TAFI to the talk page
 * Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
 * Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection

Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.

We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications

Invitation to the Google Doodle task force
– Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Today's articles for improvement

Exoplanets
Thank you for your contributions on "List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft". These edits are useful. Or you're not finished yet? --Artman40 (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the time to finish up yet. The moment I have an extended time period to finish up my edits I will certainly do so. Wer900 • talk 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Celestial masses
Template:Celestial masses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What if extraterrestrials come to Earth listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What if extraterrestrials come to Earth. Since you had some involvement with the What if extraterrestrials come to Earth redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question)  00:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)