User:Wnt/Archive/2

This is an archive of everything from December 2010 to December 2013

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Creation of articles from leaked classified documents. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there is now a sub-section, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#On Viriditas and this article where claims about your actions are being discussed. __meco (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative

Wnt, concerning your actions at the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, you are definitely doing some good work, but other actions are becoming disruptive. For example, this was a personal attack on another editor.[1] Also, your comments about what sources are and are not appropriate, are also incorrect. Primary sources cannot be used to source controversial information. As soon as information is "challenged or likely to be challenged", sourcing requirements become more stringent. See WP:V. The best way to proceed from this point is to ensure that anything added to the article, is accompanied by a reliable, secondary source. Thanks, --Elonka 14:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that the above was a personal attack on an editor. I also dispute your reading of WP:V, which to me reads, "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Now there is almost no doubt in my mind that the CFDI list leak is both reliable and published, since that's what all the papers have been saying for the past three days. The policy specifically says that "primary sources are normally welcome". And I'm not sure the CFDI list, compiled by DHS working with other federal agencies, is actually primary anyway.

Put it this way: suppose I make an article for a set of election results. Is it OK if I rely on the government agency that compiled the results? Or do I have to independently track down some newspaper that published each of the numbers? I really don't think so, and certainly it shouldn't be necessary. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring your comment at the article talkpage. As for the sourcing question, the issue is as to whether or not the information is challenged. If you posted election results sourced to a primary source, and no one challenged the information or source, then that would probably be fine. But as soon as someone else came in and said, "Hey, those results are wrong," or "That's not a good source," then the sourcing requirements go up, and it would be necessary to add reliable secondary sources to back up anything that had been challenged. --Elonka 15:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In the interests of diplomacy - and because I mistakenly thought when writing the above that OhConfucius was acting on his own, rather than because you had suggested him to do those things - I've redacted the comment you mentioned.^[2] This is not an acknowledgment of any wrongdoing, as such actions generally warrant a sternly worded protest, but simply a recognition of the broader circumstance. Wnt (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that a source can be challenged if people think it's wrong. However, I don't see any such challenge about the CFDI list. I must have read two dozen stories about this by now, and all of them accept that the leaked CFDI list is accurate. I actually have room for doubt in my mind, and would note if some of the items were being challenged as not really having been on the list, but there's been no call for it. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are two dozen reliable sources about the list, then by all means use those instead. That would make for a very solid, reliably sourced article. --Elonka 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles are newspaper articles. They don't have space for the entire list of nearly 300 items. They mention some here and there, and Silverseren has been doing a heroic job of referencing the list items mentioned by some source or other specifically. But the point is, there's no dispute that the Wikileaks publication of the list is authentic. It's not a "challenged" source, and it is the definitive source. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the edits on the article, the source most definitely has been challenged. Therefore it should be replaced with something more reliable. Also, look at it this way: You want to make a Wikipedia article which lists things that are on a primary source list. If no other reliable sources are covering the items on that list, then how is the information even notable enough for a Wikipedia article? See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Neither is it a news source. See especially WP:NOT#STATS. We are just an encyclopedia. The best way to write the article is to make it a summary of the controversy about the list, and there appear to be plenty of sources about that, so stick with what those sources say, and don't worry about the raw list data. --Elonka 15:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's WP:STATS in its entirety: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Does that really sound to you like a mandate to take out the list? And the notability threshold has long since been met for this article; you don't have to argue notability for every single fact in an article. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to this: Anything that you wish to put into the article, must include a reliable source. If you don't have a reliable secondary source for information, then don't add that information until such a source becomes available. --Elonka 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I fear we are repeating ourselves. And you say "reliable source" then "reliable secondary source" - which is it? I am loath to start up a thread on yet another noticeboard, but if we're having this much trouble making any headway, maybe we need to go to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Because one of us is just plain wrong, and I don't think it's me! Wnt (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just to say; But as soon as someone else came in and said, "Hey, those results are wrong," or "That's not a good source," then the sourcing requirements go up, and it would be necessary to add reliable secondary sources to back up anything that had been challenged is complete nonsense (no offence). This is actually two issues. If someone came forward and said "Hey, those results are wrong" and and could provide a reliable source to back that up, then there is an issue. If they say "that's not a good source" then we debate why. However, just because information is challenged does not mean we cannot use primary sources; sure, the sources need to be good. But in this case primary sourcing is used correctly and as advised. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Assertions of users having made personal atack (PA) on another user is always a very serious allegation. Such allegations should of course only be presented if the attack is indeed that. In the case of the edit made by Wnt which you label as a PA, the closest example we find at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? seems to be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", but obviously even that criterion does not describe Wnt's criticism of Viriditas Ohconfucius. Strictly to-the-point criticism (even, as in this case, accompanied by a critical comparison—"run of the mill Wikipedia deletionist") should never be painted out as a PA. As you will be able to appreciate from my post at WP:ANI#On Viriditas and this article (should you not already have read it) the criticism against Viriditas is not frivolous or unfounded and it stems from multiple quarters (evident at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak). I urge you to be more discerning in making the distinction between acceptable criticism and personal attacks as introductions into these conflicts of claims of the latter can swiftly cause the conflict level to mount. __meco (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the user above was Ohconfucius rather than Viriditas; though I can see from your quotes that you're talking about the same post the other discussion is irrelevant. In any case Ohconfucius was acting on the urging of an administrator speaking "ex cathedra", as Stephan Schultz put it, so my remarks were somewhat misplaced. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to have that (those) misunderstanding(s) cleared up! I've very recently been in conflict with Ohconfucius at the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize article, so I was rather quick to jump the gun myself here. Apologies to Viriditas for bringing their name into this section for no good reason! __meco (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Smallman hereby award you the Original Barnstar for being bold and taking the initiative to create the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative following several discussions. I hope that the article, and the ensuing drama won't take its toll on you. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 02:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to know about this discussion, where she has copied over her Work1 into AN. Silverseren^C 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

You recently attacked User:Elonka Dunin on WP:AN, in the thread "Object to Elonka reformatting this thread".[3] You tried to poison the well, claiming that her interest in cryptography conflicts with her role as an Administrator and editor who is concerned about the use of primary sources on Wikipedia. In the future, please remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Polite and effective discourse requires avoiding the personalizing of issues. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA, which you cited above, specifically says "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Wnt (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're just poisoning the well. Having a professional interest in cryptography (she writes about it) is not a COI, and you haven't shown a COI. Instead, what you have done and continue to do, is make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. These accusations are serious accusations, and as such, you require serious evidence. We all know you don't have any, so this is clearly an overt smear intended to malign your opponent. This is the kind of bad behavior that got your buddy Meco kicked off the no.wikipedia.org. Please note the difference between an unsubstantiated smear and a fact. And, do not think for a minute that anyone missed how you and others ratcheted up the rhetoric in every discussion, accusing people who disagree with you of "censorship". The jig is up, my friend, and the personal attacks will stop, one way or another. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify the implicit logic. As per the source cited, she had direct physical access to an area of CIA headquarters that is off limits to the public. This was incidental to her addressing CIA workers. To do so, she must have a security clearance. To retain her security clearance, she is required to toe the line on Wikileaked "classified documents" (according to her own sources that she's been posting). And WP:COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". So this is squarely within the legitimate discussion of COI. If this were improper, then the COI policy might as well be thrown out because no one could raise the issue without defying policy themselves. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, keep trying to poison the well. Let's see how well that works out for you. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say start an Administrators' Noticeboard thread if you want, but as it happens, I made the comment on the Administrators' Noticeboard. So I suppose that if this is not a proper argument to make, I'll find out. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your thought process is faulty. Best practice on large noticeboard discussions I'd to ignore them where they occur, and comment on the user talk page. Have you had any response? Why am I here? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of on-topic noticeboard discussions, WP:IPAT rules the day, with comments about the attacks best left on user talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an essay, so it doesn't rule anything, but in any case, I think we've pretty much talked this to death, and made our positions clear to one another. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs, first and foremost, on the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law. This essay is an extension of already existing policies and guidelines that work. If you need a rule or a law to govern common sense, good judgment, and civility, then you've missed the entire point. You already know it is wrong to attack Elonka for her professional interests. You don't need anyone to tell you this. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What I think is that it's wrong for someone to enter a debate presenting herself as an "uninvolved administrator" when she is in fact closely associated with one of the principals in the debate, and seeking to impose that POV under the authority of being an administrator, contrary to policy. This is not merely a matter of her being a cryptographer - there are plenty of cryptographers in the private sector who have never given talks at CIA headquarters. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your problem. You are confusing the role of an admin/editor with the professional interests of a person in RL, interests which have no bearing on this topic. Let me give you one example. We have many editors who are attorneys. Does that present a COI in noticeboard discussions about policy and law? What about mathematicians who write maths articles and who help draft MOS or project guidelines? And what about editors and journalists, can they not contribute to discussions about the use of classified documents on Wikipedia? Your line of reasoning breaks down before you even open your mouth. COI issues deal with article content, such as a bio subject writing about themselves or their business. And as long as this COi is known and under control, there is not a problem. We even have editors writing about their good friends and family. None of this has anything to do with Elonka and her role on the noticeboard, where she is wearing her editorial hat. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, just to put the matter to rest: You are wrong.  :) I did speak at CIA once, but to my knowledge I am still just a private citizen, and I am under no obligation (that I know of) to comment one way or the other related to classified documents. Or in other words: You are saying things about me that are not true, and have nothing to do with my efforts as a Wikipedia administrator. --Elonka 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

15 December, maybe 14 for you?

<reminisce> I had a hissy fit over being called "deletionist" one time, because it really hurt my feelings. I mean a huge hissy fit: Multiple and increasingly frantic posts to the administrator’s notice board, accidental racial epithets, real tearing-of-shirt stuff. Embarrassing.

I saw your comment on the CFDI talk page and wanted to make a request: Please don't call people names.

Anyway, the real problem with calling people names (even if those names are totally accurate) is that it interferes with creating good content (maybe more-so when the names are accurate, in fact). It does this by making the general atmosphere more hostile and making it harder for people to compromise, as well as by hurting their feelings.

Anyway² I hope that you're having a nice day wherever you are,
brenneman 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Should I say "a person intent on deleting information"...? Wnt (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better to say "may we discuss this edit in which information was deleted?" Better not even to say "...like your last five edits where you deleted information." I'm certainly not saying that I am always able to abide by this, but it is without a doubt the best way to get what you want. brenneman 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright - I have to admit that you are recommending the best practice, and at the moment I find that a substantial amount of my annoyance at Elonka has evaporated, or at least shifted, after finding out that in the whole wide world the first people who seem to be interested in the Wikified article are Hezbollah. I was truly expecting the article would be of much greater interest to peace activists, fair trade groups, labor groups, people interested in improving the balance of trade. I think it's important to maintain freedom in Wikipedia and America in general, but info-war, like every war, needs to have an end, and as far as I'm concerned, once I prevail on the RfC and DYK, maintaining the present article, I'll have marched far enough. Wnt (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very combative language. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. We are here to provide an encyclopedia, not to fight ideological battles. --Elonka 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit of 21:04 appears to me to be poorly judged. While the content itself is only mildly provocative, its placement in a thread (sub-thread?) in which the placing editor was not previously involved, and with whom this page-owner (as much as we own any page. I bet WP:OWN links somewhere) is arguably in dispute, is inflammatory. "Is "WP:BAIT" a shortcut?" I muse to myself. - brenneman 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is one of a series of comments by Wnt on this topic that espouses a BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is the kind of thing that is going to end up on arbcom if he and others continue. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. Please first note that in opening this sub-thread I did so to provide positive constructive feedback on one of these "series of comments". Please then note that I have only taken issue with Elonka herself making these edits.

If I may speak plainly for a moment, these two having a good go (each in their own esteemable way) at one another. If Elonka thought that Wnt's comments rose to the level that a warning was required, she should have "exercise[d] good judgment and patience in dealing with others" and asked someone else to do it.

brenneman 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, we're going to have conclusive resolution on the classification issue in the positive, and we're going to have some kind of verdict on the DYK one way or the other. In case there was any confusion, I wasn't name-calling when I mentioned Hezbollah - unfortunately, I was being literal.^[4] My goal here was to keep up the Wikipedia spirit of free inquiry, but what I'm saying is that I'm no longer minded to keep honing the CFDI article sharper and sharper if that's really who is most interested in it, lest I eventually figure out something that other careful readers wouldn't have. Once the basic free speech principles are settled here, I think it's time for me to move on to subjects that I find more productive to develop here. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction

Hi Wnt, just to clarify a point in your RfC statement: We did not have a "debate" between work pages.[5] I was working on a post for WP:AN in a subpage of my userspace. You saw it, I presume by monitoring my contribs, and then created your own workpage. When I was done with my draft, I posted it to AN, and then deleted my workpage. There was no debate between us to my knowledge, so I would appreciate if you would correct that part of your statement, as it will just cause confusion. You are welcome to say that I started a thread at WP:AN, and you prepared a rebuttal, that would probably be easiest to understand. --Elonka 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I invited your response, and you did some minor editing after that, but admittedly, it didn't seem responsive to me. The talk page though qualified as a debate. It doesn't trouble me to reword if it matters. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not accurate to classify this[6] as a debate. --Elonka 19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant [7]. I did say my talk page at the RfC. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That conversation had nothing to do with classified sources. It was about maintaining decorum on talkpages, and the necessity to use reliable sources, not primary sources. If you still want to link it, feel free, but it would be incorrect to categorize it as being a discussion about classified sources, and I truly do not think it would be helpful to you. I am also giving you good faith advice here, as I don't think you understand how an RfC works. Trying to link to a now-deleted subpage in userspace, which is effectively identical with a post in a thread at WP:AN, is just going to look bizarre. Your current statement at the RfC also is very long, and could be perceived as defensive. If you are looking to persuade, I would recommend making your comment considerably shorter, and focus on the issue at hand, links to classified documents, without going into a long list of bulletpoints, which will just cause people to skip over it as tl;dr. To review other RfCs to see how they proceeded, check here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. --Elonka 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I may decide to do revisions later on, but I think I covered the topic well enough for now. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are done

I've done what I can for now for the references in the article. There are 8 more, four of which are mines, and then almost all of China and all of Japan. I could find absolutely nothing for Japan and only a little for China. Think you could pull anything up yourself? Silverseren^C 23:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I found one, sort of..... [8] Now that is what I would call embarrassing success. Still, we knew they were looking at this list all along - only the illusion is broken. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that comes close to being a reliable source though. Silverseren^C 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was... though if we looked into it, it might be usable as a primary source used about itself... Wnt (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign for deletion

The article Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is More Classified than Unclassified

Maybe this Harvard Univ. source could be used to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents. "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."

Peter Galison, a historian and Director[9] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, research shows that the U.S. Government produces more classified information than unclassified information.[10].

"..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."

Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and Physics at Harvard University. His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic (1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes The Architecture of Science (1999), Picturing Science, Producing Art (1998), and Scientific Authorship (2003). In 1997, he was named a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and in 1999 he received the Max Planck Prize. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thyrosafe

<Thread moved to Talk:Thyrosafe>

Nomination of Thyrosafe for deletion

The article Thyrosafe is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thyrosafe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in Afd on Phillip Greaves

Hi Wnt, I very much like your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Greaves. I have found it myself that there are many articles about obscure things no one knows about that could be challenged, but they go unchallenged because no one knows they exist. But in an ironic twist, if someone comes into the news, which should be a qualifying factor for an article, that is when AfD happens.

Wikipedia has millions of articles. Each day has 1440 minutes. How much time does one person have to see what every article is like. How many articles do you personally know exist.

I think a lot about the types of articles I have created. I have created a lot of articles on common, everyday, obvious things in our lives that we see every day, like Mobile phone signal and Pandering (politics), and I have also created articles on more obscure things, including a lot of 1990s songs that were played on the radio like crazy back then but are not anymore, and criminals who have committed major crimes whose stories have been told on cable channels.

Some of the articles I have written have been proposed for deletion. So which ones do you think have? Believe it or not, they are those on the common, everyday, obvious things in our lives that we see every day, such as Wet paint sign, which got deleted, Pet naming, which got merged, and Tragedy (event), which was kept. Loud music and Bereavement flight got prodded, but the prods were contested, and the articles have since been improved. Most of these deletions were for the dumbest reasons.

Really, all it takes is one person to put an article up for deletion. Others may or may not agree, but there are many people who have a narrow view what they like. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

cablegate citation template discussion

Hi Wnt, you might be interested in participating in the rather practical discussion of what the cablegate citation template should actually loook like: Template_talk:Cablegate. The template itself is at Template:Cablegate. Boud (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they're arguing about policy, just the best thing to name the cable parameter/template. I think naming a template is pretty much the prerogative of whoever is willing to wade in and do the task (which if it involves the cite web template might be formidable). Unless someone starts an administrative process to delete the template or parameter or otherwise change it by force, I think I should just let the person who had the idea bring it to completion. Wnt (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel mediation

User:Xavexgoem has agreed to mediate a MedCab case at which you commented recently. I encourage you to decide whether you would like to add yourself as a party to the mediation. JJB 14:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just made a hit-and-run comment about what stuck out to me, but I'm not eager to dive into the case. I don't know the subject that well and I'm not really ready to commit to looking at it. It sounds like the case, once again, is being rejected from mediation anyway - I'm not sure what mediation addresses and what it doesn't. I hope my quick comment might persuade someone to look over the article and do some good editing, but that's all. Wnt (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:EVENT

Has the meaning of this guideline really changed due to FT2's edits? See my query at WP:VPP#Articles about criminal hoaxes. Fences&Windows 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided the diff ([11]) at that discussion - this is the first instance where the "enduring historical significance and meets the GNG" was added. I deeply dislike this wording because it makes it even harder for events to be considered as notable, and because I know far too well that by Wikipedia standards the next Pokemon character or the dress worn by some actress at a movie awards ceremony has enduring historical significance, but the death of 25 protesters in Kashmir does not. If we just go by the multiple secondary sources criterion, at least we won't increase the biases already present in news reporting. Wnt (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. WP:NOTNEWS already imposed a restriction greater than WP:GNG, what WP:EVENT does is attempt to reconcile the two. It has always been stricter than WP:GNG, that's the whole intent of the guideline. If your interpretation was correct and all that was needed for an article on an event was a handful of news articles that all appeared within a couple of days of the event, we might as well delete WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 03:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it never imposed any such restriction. It says "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Though it couldn't be more clear, yes, I know, every single time the policy is mentioned, it is as if it said something else. The specific examples they give -- "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion" -- should be taken to refer to items that don't receive coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. A local paper covering the school sports team may not be independent, and an article may not be covered multiple times - but it's clear enough that lots of sports does get covered. And the reason is that just because it is not sufficient basis for inclusion, it is also not a basis for exclusion. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never been much of a fan of IRC - is there really a continuous 24-hour days-long discussion going on about pending changes??? Even if there were it would seem impossible to keep track of in such a medium, unless there's something I'm missing. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NickCT (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Khaled Saeed photo

Hi, I would appreciate your opinion here if you have a few minutes... bring your policy hat and fair use folder... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg Ocaasi (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

LOD score

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of LOD score, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Genetic linkage. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, "#REDIRECT" was omitted. I think a good bot could place this automatically when an article consists of a single link and nothing else. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Eye test question

Re [12], while your answer was not inappropriate, the question was. This person is asking for advice on how to illegally obtain a driving license by ignoring laws put in place for public safety. If there isn't a specific policy against this, common sense should suffice--Jac16888 ^Talk 05:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the OP knows what he wants. A few pointers in the right direction can be helpful in such cases. Besides, he already and responded to the duh obvious suggestions that come up for that situation. There's no policy against this - we just had a big argument about that on the talk page and that's still the situation. Wnt (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Poster

The poster is clearly part of the Lacroix watches campaign. It's the same photo. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah I came across the same link a few minutes later! Seems like the campaign is a year old, and pretty much escaped any on-wiki attention when it first appeared Jebus989^✰ 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent Tony a message, so hopefully it will get a mention in an upcoming Signpost. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What's with you and ED?

Are you a member or something? Because I don't know why you're trying to make it easier for the trolls over at .ch to spam Wikipedia and to break our policy rules. Our linking to ED itself in the first place was already restricted in the past, this isn't any different, beyond the fact that we have copyright issues to deal with as well. Silverseren^C 08:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat the reader honestly. The current Encyclopedia Dramatica article gives people reading the idea that the site is dead and gone, without so much as mentioning the word mirror. Only by consulting some reliable source (or the talk page) do they suddenly discover that Wikipedia has misled them out of some unctuous sense of morality. This site is not a court, and it is not up to us to be "unpersoning" sites we think are inappropriate (if we do). That .ch site is based in the U.S., a country not generally known for lax copyright enforcement - if there's anything to the legal case it will be down faster than you can say "temporary injunction".

Additionally, the ED case has implications for Wikipedia, in the sense that it was a free wiki that people voluntarily contributed to. Will people find that their free contributions are being used as the private property of a single site owner? If so, I think that the community spirit on every Wiki, including this one, is dimmed. I know Wikipedia has clearer CC licensing and mirrors exist, but there's always some legal technicality that can be brought up. If Wikipedia were taken down, does anyone have the full history? Then someone can say the mirrors don't provide individual author attribution. So they say using the individual edits violates copyright ... before long it's in the same position. Also note that in order for Wikipedia to continue as a living institution after some disruption, people would have to organize and choose a single mirror site to get behind. All these things are being tested now in the ED case. And potential editors will, directly or indirectly, pick up what to expect from what they see.

Last but not least... it is funny, isn't it? And as a community it stands up to lots of would be censors to say anything that comes to mind, no matter what. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

.ch has yet to be mentioned in any reliable sources. We've already discussed on the talk page that we don't have an issue with adding a sentence mentioning that mirrors exist, citing the Gawker reference, but we're not going to add info about a site that isn't discussed.

Do you actually know anything about Wikipedia's copyright policy? Each wiki has their own policy, most of them being like what ED had. Wikipedia is rather revolutionary in the fact that it allows people to copy any of its content and use it, even monetarily, just so long as they attribute the content to Wikipedia. And, as we've seen from Google books, a lot of websites and publishers have taken advantage of this to make a pretty penny off of our articles. But most wikis have the copyright of ED, essentially that the content is copyrighted to the site itself and cannot be used commercially or in any other form without permission.

All ED members had to do was ask Sherrod for permission to make a mirror of the content, permission that would likely have been granted in the beginning before all of their actions. But, of course, they didn't, because they never had a positive opinion of Sherrod, since they are trolls. It's just like how 4chan looks at its owner, moot. They don't respect him at all. There's word that moot is thinking about doing the same thing that Sherrod did and I don't blame him. I certainly wouldn't keep up a site with members who constantly harass you. Silverseren^C 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Explain this, please. Because it seems very obvious to me and, if so, it would mean that you are trying to game us all here. Silverseren^C 17:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC) [ED link in archive was munged with an asterisk to avoid its blacklisting via 'spam filter' when I archived this, several years after the site was down and moved to .se] Wnt (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think I am trying to "game". Could you explain that? I don't get what your link is even supposed to argue. I think what you're missing in your ED "controversy" about the supposed copyright issue, is that if ED is shut down and does not continue, then there will be a very simple message sent to all those looking to attack a wiki: all you need to do is get some leverage over the person in charge, and you can shut it down for good. The idea that a community of contributors exists, who are authors with a stake in the enterprise, who can go on on their own - it all implodes. The point of contributing to a Wiki implodes.

If Wikipedia were abruptly shut down, I don't think it would be any harder to come up with specious copyright arguments against someone trying to create a new mirror site of it. You say that contributors aren't acknowledged due to loss of history, or lost talk or project pages, or deleted pages. There's always some way to claim a copyright problem. What I think that means is: if ED.ch does not succeed, then Wikipedia will likely face a serious attack to destroy it and enslave its content within the next five years. We will have to mobilize against the possibility, for example, by ensuring that full mirror sites exist, complete with the entire page history and attribution and even the deleted edits and articles, in multiple countries.

But nothing in the text you've quoted from that site has ever convinced me that anyone agreed to a copyright transfer in which they would lose the right to use their own contributions. Nor does it seem clear to me that the license granted was restricted to one Web address. It says "All original content on EncyclopediaDramatica is licensed to Encyclopedia Dramatica." But as I said at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica for other reasons, I think that Encyclopedia Dramatica is a collective creative work, like a book or a movie. As long as a site is aspiring to be Encyclopedia Dramatica, I think that license should hold. But even if it doesn't hold, copying edits that people made for the purpose of public display and merciless editing should fall well within Fair Use. I can't see any reasonable way to claim that the Google Cache is OK and this is wrong, unless you accept the somewhat realistic but politically intolerable position that copyright is a blank check that allows the government to reward sites or shut them down at whim, without any logic at all. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Two of my favorite editors. Nough said I hope. Ocaasi ^c 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got kind of angry when I saw that conversation. Why are you supporting .ch in the name of discordianism, anyways?

You're doing this because you think Wikipedia is going to be attacked? I think this whole thing with .ch is representative of the fact that you should know about the copyright of a site if you are going to be contributing content to it. If Wikipedia shut down, other sites would be allowed to mirror it without issue, so long as it stated that all of the information was from Wikipedia (attributing it). Unfortunately, ED did not have the same copyright as Wikipedia does. I've explained this multiple times already.

While I may want to agree with you on how copyright should work, i'm afraid that's not how it does work. The law doesn't recognize a community of people as a creative work or, at least, i've never heard of it doing so before. And I only see it doing that if the original owner petitioned for it to be as such. Fair use does not apply to such content and, if it did, it certainly wouldn't apply to wholesale copying of entire pages. Fair Use policy is very specific in how it may be used, as you know.

Google Cache is an archival service that works with sites to get them more hits. Sites willingly allow Google to use its cache service so that people can find content. Google only creates a cache for your site if you add specific code that allows Google to do so, forming a sort of contract between the site and Google. Also, Google Cache actively deletes caches for sites that have gone dead. It might take a while, since it works with the whole internet, but eventually Google will remove those caches of ED, since the site is dead and the contract has thus ended.

Last thing is that we need to find out if Sherrod had gotten the ED logo trade-marked. Because, if she did, since .ch uses the same logo (albeit with the added words under it), that would be compounding their copyright violations. Silverseren^C 03:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you would feel angry about. ED is a site running in the United States - hardly a haven for copyright or trademark violation. If Sherrod has a case she will probably have a temporary restraining order in no time - should have had one already, probably. You can say that ED contributors should have demanded a more perfect free-licensing of their contributions, but the gist of either version was to make them freely available. Even Wikipedia decided it had gotten the free license wrong and ended up going back and switching from GFDL to CC. Who knows if that will actually stand up in court if tested. To me Wikipedia and ED are two closely related phenomena, which are influenced by the same factors. Whatever destroys one may well destroy the other.

Personally I am not a believer in copyright or other intellectual property - I feel that it is a dying system, totally reliant on state power and arbitrary judicial boundaries, which approaches infinite inefficiency, which imposes trade deficits on those countries like the U.S. which rely on it or enforce it more strictly. But I'm not suggesting Wikipedia make a statement about copyright, only that it avoid trying to leap in and decide a case before the courts do. It's one thing to say you should never link to sites you find stuffed onto free web providers which say grab this pirated video before it's gone, quite another to look at a site out in the open and claim it's a violation. WP's reaction to possible violations on external links is a pragmatic safety measure, but it is not a moral crusade. We are simply doing what seems needed to stay out of trouble while we wait for the established copyright system to collapse the way communism did in the 1980s. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the trademark issue is something I mentioned in the discussion previously; but since it hasn't been raised I doubt it applies. I don't recall seeing any R's or TM's by the ED logo, and I doubt Sherrod can get a trademark now, for a name she no longer uses. Even if she does have a case, there's no WP policy about links to trademark infringement, because that's a crapshoot that makes copyright lawsuits look predictable. Wnt (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rights removed

I may be feeding your trolling (not sure) but after this post [13] it is obvious that you can't be left reviewing edits.--Scott Mac 21:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I never asked for them, but I never asked for them to be taken away either. At least we have established that reviewer rights are assessed according to political belief, not the quality with which people review edits, and that this is done without regard to policy - in fact, in the absence of policy. Wnt (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue with the removing administrator, and he's stated he would like to hear from you. Please see the discussion at User talk:Scott MacDonald. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. [14] Wnt (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the solid on the Talk:Pippa Middleton page. As the person that originally posted the fact that she had been offered $5M for 1 explicit scene (and lost his reviewer rights for doing so as well) I appreciate your defense of policy and established protocols. SeanNovack (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw this^{Clarify:Wnt's right removal} as it happened and was pretty shocked. Regardless of your opinion on an article's content, reviewer status should be removed only if it is misused, and removing it prevents harm to the encyclopaedia. Whereas when pending changes is not even active, this was a pointy move by an admin who should know better Jebus989^✰ 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When that edit occured I brought the admin's behavior [15] to AN/I [16] and things boomeranged from there. I was a little taken aback by the fact that a decision was rendered in only a couple of hours, but as I had offered to relinquish my rights if the community felt I was in the wrong I had no cause to complain. SeanNovack (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the decision is at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt. It's clear that some of the supporters of PC actually stand behind these actions, while others disagree; I hope we've argued enough that it will not be accepted as a de facto policy change. There is no process that I know of to formally appeal or get consensus on reviewer rights being granted or taken away, and as they were given to me quite arbitrarily, I suppose them being taken away in the same way is only fair. There was even a suggestion on that page that all the test reviewers might lose rights as the test winds down, something which I don't oppose. In any case, they've served their purpose -- I received them as a test of the system, and I've used them to identify a problem. If taking reviewer rights really meant giving up the right to oppose BLP-based removal of well sourced, NPOV content anywhere on Wikipedia, then I wouldn't keep them long in any case. Now it's time to watch Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011 or wherever the discussion goes next, and make sure that censorship by (and of) reviewers never happens. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		for grace under the personal attack of Scott Mac, mass BLP deleter. Slowking4 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I completely support this barnstar as well. Silverseren^C 01:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. SeanNovack (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I was upset that Wikipedia would delete the Khaled Said picture that was pivotal in the Egyptian protests, and I participated to a minor extent in keeping up with the news reports, but this isn't really a subject area I'd be very good at. You really need people who understand the culture and the Arabic sources to do a good job with something like that. Actually, I haven't really focused on FA/GA status in general - overall I prefer applying the first broad strokes rather than finishing touches. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I went full bore at the Said image and now it's up for good. I agree that first strokes are critical, and to be honest there may sadly be more individuals like this. When that happens, it'd be nice to have a team ready to coordinate gathering sources, etc. I'm not sure arabic sources will be necessary, but we do have some native Arabic speakers ready to go as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

Hi, Wnt. I don't think we've interacted on any pages, although I've seen your name around for a long time. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate some of your recent, insightful comments about BLP concerns at WP. This, in particular, was right on the mark. I hope your predictions won't come true, but I very much fear they will. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I came here to express my general agreement with that same comment, although I'm less pessimistic than you. The reason for my comparative optimism is that, by the nature of Wikipedia, it can change with the arrival or departure of a fairly small number of editors, along with the possibility of individuals remaining in the project but changing their minds.

Nevertheless, things admittedly are bad enough that the idea of a fork has at least flitted through my mind. If you ever start compiling a list of editors to be recruited for the new project, please add me -- JimLane at americamail dot com. Meanwhile, let's hang in there and keep trying to get information to the readers, subversive as that objective sometimes is. JamesMLane t c 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

i agree. there seems to be a drift of "admin knows best"; the use of reversion tools during the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, while we were waiting for reliable sources to out people; office tools about the Texas Instruments signing key controversy. it appears to be lawyer driven. the foundation knows the trends are bad, when will we have the leadership. on the other hand, the wiki can route around the admins. Slowking4 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I was being overly pessimistic - I'm glad to see that people are putting up a fight there. But I don't know. Clearly a fork to Wikipedia is not an easy thing, and not something to be done lightly - but it's not too early for people to start thinking about the obstacles involved. There are some very, very much simpler experiments that might be helpful to run first... Wnt (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I repeated myself... then again, I feel like everyone is repeating themselves. The policies are bad to begin with. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quercetin

Please see Talk:Quercetin#Alternative medicine; I think the Alternative Medicine Review reference is well worth keeping. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, Wnt, I agree with Yobol. --Zefr (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I never even noticed it was eligible! I should thank User:Speciate for creating the article and adding considerably more material than I did. Wnt (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Combined statement

I agree with most of those statements. However, I think what you are doing is unnecessary, needlessly disruptive, and in general unhelpful. The ArbCom has not accepted the case, and even if they do accept it, there's no reason to think that that some terrible result will occur. Talking about getting the community to override the ArbCom is in general a recipe for drama. A statement of the sort you apparently envision is at this time both unhelpful and unnecessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that was a step too far - but some of them said rather plainly that they wanted a consensus or else they'd impose it. So why not work up a consensus? Still, if a few more of the 11 agree with you, then I have little choice but to give up the idea. It's only impressive if most of the participants in the case come out and agree on a set of principles. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the notion of the ArbCom imposing a content decision is troubling, but I don't think that is likely to occur in this situation at this time. Also, I'm concerned by your use of the term "faction" which sounds very combative. We're trying to work together to make an encyclopedia, not engage in politics and tribal feuding. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like there is a lot of combativeness in this case. Even the ArbCom members seem unusually forward in their initial statements. And the 2012 election is just getting started... Wnt (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've moved this to a more neutral title, User:Wnt/Joint statement/santorum, in accordance with your comments. It's also pretty clear that there isn't a majority supporting all of the points, so a lengthy statement like this won't be the right vehicle to use to try to override them. I think there is still some use for this as a "common ground" sort of statement. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Faction proposal

Hi Wnt, I think I'm going to have to pass on your joint statement. I'm not familiar with Cirt's editing enough to comment there, and I agree a few things Jayen has pointed to are troubling, such as the repeated introduction of self-published material. I'm also not convinced that the neologism needs to be added to those templates. So I'm not sure I'll have enough common ground with the proposed group overall to make it worth the time to edit this into something I'd be happy with. You're welcome to quote my summary of the news coverage, however, if others would like to adopt it as part of your joint statement. Thanks for trying to build even a limited consensus out of this mess. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. Besides the two of you on this talk page I have one endorsing and one (Sandstein) demurring/disagreeing. It looks like I inferred more common ground than there is, but the results aren't all in. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs

Could you provide a single diff supporting your serious allegation that editors working on behalf of Santorum have been active in the dispute? It sounds to me like a baseless smear without evidence, in which case you should retract it. Disclosure: I am not a Santorum supporter, but I know bullshit when I see it. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. In this case you may have a point. The first I heard of the "santorum controversy" [by which I mean the debate on Wikipedia] was 23:20 June 2. [17] Santorum announced his candidacy on June 6, which is when I heard about it. But going over the article again I see someone found a source saying he announced he was going to announce on May 26.^[18] I'll have to do something about this. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ulch language Abdul Fatah Younis Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey Ricky Salmon Korean calligraphy Asia-Pacific Malta Today Dolphins cricket team The Zoo (TV series) Kristinn Hrafnsson Java APIs for Bluetooth Obama Line OpenLeaks Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Indonesia) Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia) RAF Nicosia Rumoi Main Line

Cleanup World Cyber Games 2007 Torneo di Viareggio 1979 Gray (unit) Merge Chorba Toubou people Taktser Rinpoche Add Sources Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Region — Americas) 2011 Yemeni uprising Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Region — Europe) Wikify Ray Austin (director) International Boundary and Water Commission Central Intelligence Agency Act Expand Extended Secondary School Al-Qaeda Daniel Domscheit-Berg

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm relieved to see that the bot has very little idea of how I think - though the obvious articles related to Wikileaks are always interesting. ;) I can see that after my editing the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article it wants to serve me all sorts of WikiLeaks related stuff. But why is it so fixated on the 2011 Libyan uprising which I really did very little editing of? And it completely ignored all the biology-related articles. I think the Zoo TV series results from one time I dug in and tried to sort out a trivia section I didn't care about in some cartoon article, just to see how such things look from a more detached perspective. In general, I feel like the bot is going in certain directions that are easiest for it to move, rather than closely matching my interests; it is also possible that it decided that some topics were related and tried to draw a line between them. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair to note

Dear Sir,

As I have responded directly to several of your comments at the pending RFAr page, I felt it only reasonable to inform you of that. Respectfully. — Ched :  ?  07:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By "santorum controversy" I mean the debate on Wikipedia. I've never viewed the coinage of "santorum" as a controversy at all. You say that "two wrongs don't make a right". But I doubt you're suggesting we not report Santorum is running in the primary in order to suppress his ideas. So why would you suggest we not report Savage's campaign to suppress his ideas? Richard of Earth said there could be embarrassment for Santorum's children, but have any committed suicide? Now ask yourself how many gay kids in the U.S. continue to die that way. That's the difference between a trumped-up Wikipedia issue and the real political issue to which we must defer. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Regards, — Ched :  ?  19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, at the risk of seeming like I'm not assuming good faith I'd like to tell you that I am having a lot of trouble believing your claims about this - I don't doubt your claim to Vriditas when he called you on that other thing but I do doubt what you wrote to me. Your analogy is also way off base. No one is suggesting we censor information about Savage's campaign. What is being suggested is that we do not further his campaign. If we had Wikipedia articles that furthered Santorum's campaign or his political ideas more generally as opposed to simply reporting facts about his candidacy I would also be outraged. And just to be clear my politics lean quite strongly to the left, way left of Mr. Santorum, and I find the views he expressed that sparked the Google bombing campaign deplorable. What I wont do, however, is sacrifice the integrity of Wikipedia to further my own political agenda. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When it's proposed to cut down a huge, highly detailed article to a few crummy sentences, it looks a lot like censorship to me. Wnt (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment invited on Rob Todd

Wnt, you previously commented at Talk:Rob Todd on changes I had made there after a discussion with Jimbo at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Off2riorob (talk · contribs) and I are disagreeing on that same edit at WP:BLPN#Rob Todd. If you're so inclined, as someone who had also looked at the page and its sources, your input might be helpful. Thanks, // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity relativity pages

hi Wnt, i noticed that you defended Wikiversity against a deletion proposal not so long ago, and you also seem to be involved in physics-related page in general. My guess is that my POV probably agrees with yours: Wikiversity is presently not very well developed, but is potentially a great project. i think that some important steps/elements are present in the project, but it's clear that the project is nowhere near having the critical mass of editors required at the moment. My guess is that contributing some serious and well-developed content on one course might help inspire others. Weak content is not going to grow exponentially. A small good core on a physics topic might lead to the required exponential growth - for similar reasons to the high quality of physics/maths articles on Wikipedia. You seem to be someone serious, so that's why i'm starting with you.

i'm going to try some minor tidying up of the relativity pages on Wikiversity, and adding at least some meta-comments about a "real life" course, and if it doesn't take me too long, i'll try putting my real-life course in place there (exam taking place right now, some students already have full marks :). Feel free to help tidy up my tidying and content there. Boud (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's taken me virtually a whole day to do some general tidying up. Probably look at wikiversity:School:Physics and Astronomy and then see if looking for resources on relativity (there are very few) seems clear enough in organisational structure. A general problem seems to be confusion between Wikiversity: namespace and main namespace there. You can also see some notes on wikiversity:User:Boud. Boud (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Latin Kings tattoo example.png

Thank you for uploading File:Latin Kings tattoo example.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh phooey, I thought I picked the PD-USGov via the menu. Sigh, let's go look... Wnt (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Wnt, I'm thankful to you for your comments regarding a recently created attack essay page about me. I agree with you with regard to your talk page comments about the inappropriate behavior going on at that page. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

VPR comment

Hi, I moved your VPR comment over to User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wonder_if_you_might_want_to_weigh_in..., where banned users were mentioned. (Your comment rather baffled me until I thought to look there, given Jimbo's comment at VPR.) It's certainly not something that crossed my mind, and I don't see any advantage, and much disadvantage, in trying to link an idea of some sort of "jubilee" for banned users with this "forgiveness day" for active community members. So I hope you dont mind my moving your comment, since I don't want the discussion to go off in a different direction. Of course if you object to the move, you can undo it without risk of reversal or criticism (I know this sort of move is not a usual thing to do). Rd232 public ^talk 02:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hadn't been looking to hit that page again so soon, but I see the suggestion wasn't actually explained on the advertised thread. Ah well. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I don't even remember that. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: [19][20][21][22][23]. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks - sorry to put you through that, my memory came back once I came back to the discussion page. I can't believe people are still arguing over that. Nay, strike that, this is Wikipedia... Wnt (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Lewinsky

Discussion moved to Talk:Bernard Lewinsky

Bernard Lewinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi - please do not add that coat rack of that controversy its undue coverage in that BLP please seek support in the talkpage or the BLP noticeboard thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The guy was interviewed on CNN and many other national news outlets. How could it possibly be wrong to say what he said? [24] It was a major issue to him; a major period in his life with doubtless many influences on his future. This "coatrack" stuff... Wikipedia keeps substituting these bizarre baby-talk terms for rational discussion. Wnt (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not notable because of those issues - if he is, he's a one event WP:BLP1e - please cut out your attacks on me. If you apply undue weight to those issues in his life story then you defeat your own position. Although I do not support this BLP being kept I have edited it to the best position for it if it is to be kept. Off2riorob (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E allows keeping a person when he has had a substantial role in a notable event. He didn't just testify - he went on CNN and told the story of his family's harassment. He didn't just demand an apology from Dick Wolf and NBC - he got answered even if only in the negative. That's worth keeping. BLP1E was an exception to the usual notability guidelines but it doesn't cover this. There's abundant verifiable sourcing. Wnt (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you assert he is a notable one event in relation to his daughters controversy and deserves his own article because of that I will have to disagree. The only reason he is notable for his own Biography at wikipedia is because of his cancer research - any other issue of note belongs at another title or in another article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asserting he meets BLP1E, but that he isn't covered by it. BLP1E is a criterion that excludes people. Since it doesn't apply, the GNG applies, which he goes far beyond meeting. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was this discussion not started on the article talk page, Off2? As far as I can see this is totally a content issue, and if it's on the article talk than a wider group can have their say. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I discussed this here was because it was about me and User:WNT more than the article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest you archive your talkpage - its 2000, 000 bytes, many users have limited download capability - if you need help to set up archiving, please just ask. Off2riorob (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose it was time.  Done Wnt (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Striking others comments

Hi User:Wnt - please don't strike through my comments like that it can be misleading - archive them. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I had to look up the code for the show hide box and I didn't want people adding more stuff there instead of at the article talk page where I moved that. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for doing that - myself , its less important to me than finding some common ground for my and your editing positions without just assuming the position - sometimes you assert a stronger position to me than is warranted - often I comment and then I don't care what the community concludes - I support the position that the guidelines and policy are broken and need repair/strengthening so whatever the result is is irrelevant to me, I comment and let it go - I have long since stopped expecting the community to reflect a NPOV uninvolved result. Please understand - I comment but ultimately I do not care what the result is. It appears you have just taken an opposition position to anything to do with me - well - join the queue but ultimately I am not the issue at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly two sides here, but I'm not taking an opposition position to you personally, just many of the ideas you're siding with. I just want people to be free to take what they find in reliable sources and dump it into articles - that's all. I don't want people telling us that something is too nasty to put in, I don't want people telling us that we're wrong for not finding enough nasty stuff to "balance" our overall contributions over the months - I just want us to be free to go out there, get the goods, and bring them home, trusting to the statistics of large numbers to catch whatever we miss. If you've looked through that 200k of stuff, you'll see that I'm pretty consistent about that point. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, consistency... - is it a good thing? anyway, I look forward to meeting in the middle at some point in the future, best wishes till then. Off2riorob (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare

Hi, yes it is great to agree occasionally. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hey there is a dispute on the militant atheism article talkpage about if Militant atheism as a subject is on violation of the WP:NOTDICT article. Since you worked on the article I was hoping for your input on if and how the article is or is not a violation of the policy as it is outlined in the article. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, User:Wnt. I noticed your helpful comments on the article above and would encourage you to continue to comment as your comments help been beneficial. I have just commented there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-sequitur?

Wnt, your recent edit at the santorum article talk interjecting what I believe to be a rather clear non-sequitur from another topic into the thread of an unrelated discussion in a different topic is strange and rather clearly disruptive to the flow of that discussion. Please consider refactoring that comment to the discussion which inspired it and where any reader can understand the context in which it was offered as a relevant response.

Your curious insertion is, IMHO, a rather odd misreading of the purpose of User:Zenswashbuckler's comment in that other topic. However, even if your apparent interpretation of that suggestion were accurate, please have the courtesy to at least place your non-sequitur as a comment unrelated to and not disruptive of an ongoing discussion. I appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd answered that well enough previously.[25] It's hard to believe, but it looks like now there's only one other person left debating on this talk page ... and he thought it was relevant.[26] Wnt (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As Zenswashbuckler's subsequent response indicates (while not directly addressing a point I'll just not argue any further), your comments are nonetheless premature. If you want to house them in an undedicated topic/discussion where, in all liklihood, they will be lost to time and circumstance, be my guest. However, to deny editors the benefit of both your comments and advanced formatting offered in the context of a discussion ongoing elsewhere seems an odd choice to make as refactoring would be MY personal preference. But I guess that's what makes the world go 'round. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" consensus

Wnt, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. As a prior participant in that discussion, I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my Gawd that thing is still going on? It looks like fortunately there is already consensus there to avoid using "Wikipedia's voice" to say that the word is vulgar, and I still don't see much hope of getting people to restore all the deleted details and reactions... I don't see something obvious to do there right now. It's stalemated, which is better than some possible outcomes. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Human DNA

Love the USENET comment on WP:RD/S! DMacks (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 10, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wow. I made a couple of comments there, but I never imagined it would end up in arbitration. The funny part is that I prefer either side's partisan solution ("pro-life, anti-abortion") to the compromise "opposition to the legalization of abortion". Wnt (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

hilarious, next it will be the "late unpleasantness"; Naming the American Civil War: maybe we need an historical article about the name controversy. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your continued attention

Wnt,

I would very much appreciate your continued attention to the conversation you initiated here - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop#This_is_how_one_writes_GAs.3F. I posed a couple of questions to you after you dismissed what I and Jayen have claimed as merit-less. I am not sure if you were aware that I continued the discussion. I would very much like to hear that answers to those questions. If you do come back to the conversation please bare in mind that Jayen has made some recent changes to the entry which may have fixed some of the problems that, IMO, Cirt created. So please refer to the version of the entry prior to those fixes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

less misleading title on Meta

hi Wnt, you might be interested in adding reasons to either support or oppose meta:Meta:Proposed_page_moves#Image_filter_referendum over at Meta. My opinion is that the present name is misleading. Boud (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Referendum"

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at meta:Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en#Details_about_the_flagging_system_are_needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLAME for WikiBlame tool to search revisions

19-Aug-2011: I had hoped someone would remind you, sooner, the tool is described at WP:WikiBlame (has website link), and many people just say "blame tool" but if you think of another, more intuitive name, then we can quickly create a #REDIRECT for a WP:Bettername. As you imagined, this 2009 German tool, indeed, can search for either action, as hunting the added or removed text, to pinpoint which revision was edited that way, in any language Wikipedia (en/de/fr/es, etc.). For faster search, the tool can be directed to skip "150" or so recent revisions when the suspected change happened a long while ago. Hence, computer people are as clever as you had hoped. I am sorry for the delay, in answering this question of yours from 14:54, 17 August 2011, in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, but I imagined more people would respond to you. Although ~410 people, per day, read Jimbo's talk, I guess they aren't focused on answering all questions. For quick answers, please know Village Pump WP:PUMPTECH currently answers many such questions within a few hours, rather than days. I hope this restores your WP:AGF faith in wiki-mankind! -Wikid77 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Neat - I had no idea this existed! I'd mentioned it before, having no idea at any time it did.Though there is still useful work for devs to do to make it so that it's actually an option you have handy right on the History page. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm inclined to take watchlist statistics with a grain of salt. I mean, I must have had hundreds of pages on a watchlist I was never reading, until eventually I noticed it and purged it. I do everything based on a combination of User Contributions (which will take 5000 as an argument if you type it in the URL ;)) and memory. Wnt (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING

I don't want to come of mean, but it seems to me that the first thing on your page is advertisement, and I would advise you to remove it. Please inform me if I am mistaken. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 will respond much more timelyIf you respond on his talkpage!    23:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many WP:Userboxes which do this. Check WP:Userboxes/Sports for things like User:The Chronic/Userboxes/WWE TNA, User:KingMorpheus/ChrisBenoit1, etc. That sports userbox list is an official Wikipedia page and has been the subject of arguments for many years, so it is a pretty reliable precedent. And I'm recommending something that you can use to maintain your local copy of controversial types of YouTube videos that tend to disappear (e.g. primary footage of a Koran burning) so that you can analyze the source material when you would otherwise be unable, which I think deserves consideration above and beyond personal preference. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

lol, i see the editing of user space continues, and blp deletion is less important: fads. another excuse to delete with drama. maybe we can get an filter, so we don't have to look at offensive user boxes if we don't want to. implement a dysfunctional "solution" and move on to the next crisis. don't you know youtube is full of copyright vios, you can't link to that. Slowking4: 7@1|x 00:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:YouTube: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites". Clearly YouTube videos are often not usable as sources, but occasionally one is linked from a reliable source, or otherwise gains some relevance as a primary source. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

i agree, but the nuance is lost on the patrolers. i see primary sources are deprecated. see User:XLinkBot/Analysis hey, let's automate reversion. Slowking4: 7@1|x 01:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning re: Arbitration

This is inappropriate at Arbitration. Please moderate your conduct when participating in cases or you may be asked to leave. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, seemed like innocent fun. Do you really take that charge against Prioryman seriously? In any case, your point is taken, and I understand you have to draw the line somewhere. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You are mentioned in a discussion here: [27] Writegeist (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Work = force * distance

Hi Wnt! I responded to a pondering you added to WP:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 September 3#Rotor and propeller vs. cylinder, but it has archived and will soon roll off RD/S, so I thought I'd let you know directly. Cheers. -- 110.49.250.48 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: flooding image

Oops, I am very, very sorry about that!! :( If you wouldn't mind, could you indicate what license it is? For example, whether you release the image into the public domain. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that's the only reason I thought it wasn't yours, but I should've assumed good faith. :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Image filter next steps and the WMF's new ToS

Can you please view meta:Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en. The page appears to be open to anyone for additions and revisions. I know that you came up with your own creative ideas and alternatives to filter, and it would be nice to see them mentioned. Since you're heavily involved with BLP cases, you may be interested in viewing meta:Terms_of_use, which was created yesterday. There are already discussions on the talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your ideas and opinions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The silence is deafening

I see that you have not responded to my observations at WP:AN in response to your ill informed comments regarding my blocking of Rich Farmbrough. Perhaps you could enlighten me whether this is due to neglect - why bother checking up on replies, when you did not care to check on the facts before posting in the first place? - or embarrassment. Unless you are able (and prepared) to respond with diffs exampling the alleged display of temper, or indeed any recent prior interaction with the blocked editor, in response to my request I shall have to assume that you are not someone whose commentary on matters should be give any heed. Good day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been occupied a bit by aftereffects of Hurricane Lee, but I think you've misinterpreted what I said. That comment was directly responding and opposing a proposal by Roux calling for a one year block. I believe I said that fixed short-term blocks for such minor offenses were the preferable solution. You made a one week block, which falls into that category. I don't think I criticized you. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

...in response to my request I shall have to assume that you are not someone whose commentary on matters should be give any heed. Good day.

hilarious, yet another uncivil admin, with grammar problems. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a misunderstanding. Let's not even start with the uncivility stuff. And likely the missing "n" traces back to keyboard dust. I just submitted my keyboard to an electric leaf blower - a truly beastly contraption, but good for improving "grammar". Wnt (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

you are way more civil than i. it's one thing to have sharp differences at ANI, another to continue insults at user talk. (silence being a good way to let things cool off) but then the regretted save is quicker than the preview. i'm thinking i'll just ignore talk for a while, it dosn't have much utility. Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You may of course provide me with examples of further incivility by myself, to substantiate your claim that I am habitually impolite... I find the irony amusing that in pursuing an allegation of neglect in reviewing a matter (and in noting Wnt's response, I will review the discussion afresh) I receive a response by a third party exampling the lack of same. If my review of the discussion leads me to reconsider Wnt's comments, in light of his words here, then I shall apologise and strike my comments - as I have done so before, when I have made mistakes. As for my making spelling mistakes, you may note from my contrib history that I have historically inflated my edit count by those little corrections; providing you are familiar with reviewing edit histories and the like, per AGF. Or stay away from Talk, as you please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt; I shall review the discussion again, in light of your comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In light of the comments there and here I have struck my original observation, and apologised for them and the manner in which I made them. To ensure there is no further misunderstandings I am striking my initial post here, and would again tender my regret for what some might consider an inappropriate tone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was about to expand my comment [28] but the request was already declined and removed. For the lack of anywhere else to put it: "... On a moment's further investigation it's clear that two similar cases were recently declined: Astroturfing on Singaporean politics and Le goutte de pluie. Some arbitrators suggested that the first of these cases might be reexamined in a month or so. I think that case has a reasonable looking list of parties and was started by the editor at the center of it all, so I think that at such time as any case involving LDGP is accepted, that should be the one resumed. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)"

A question about a comment

Back a month or two ago, I read a comment of yours (I believe it was in RFC on somebody's user behavior, but I've slept since then). It went something like: "In regards to BLP policy, I'm at one end of the spectrum, and User:Off2riorob is on the other." Is my memory really faulty? If somewhat accurately recalled, what did the comment refer to? BusterD (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Some WP editors support expansion of BLP policy, and of enforcement of BLP policy, e.g. with WP:Pending changes. I believe WP should return to the policies of its most prolific epoch, in 2007, where BLP was simply a style guideline, and not used to justify the removal of well-sourced information. But this is something of a deception, because in this case (and most others) the debate is really between inclusionists and deletionists - thus, there was a case with whether Anders Breivik should include comments by people Breivik quoted dissociating themselves from his policies, where I was saying BLP demands we give people "their fair say", while Off2riorob had deleted the section. (Overall I'm very disappointed by how much has been removed from that article, for many different reasons) Wnt (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. Without stepping between two editors I admire, I've always viewed the BLP issue as a threshold thing: IMHO, no Wikipedia article should be unsourced, ever. BLP is just the most dangerous arena, since lives can be altered depending on what is maintained. I figured BLP was the first pass, and that over the next say, ten years, we'd be instituting sourcing requirements in all aspects of the pedia. I figured current events and corporations would be next. I didn't see the inclusionists and deletionists issue at all. Thanks for the speedy and considered reply. BusterD (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that those pressing for certain ideas of BLP aren't satisfied that a fact is sourced, or even well sourced to a renowned news source. To give an old example, there was a case with Johnny Weir where the BLP faction didn't want people mentioning that some Canadian sportscasters had mocked his sexuality, even though he had filed a complaint with the Canadian civil rights commission; nor did they want the LGBT Wikiproject marking the article of interest to it. The only thing that finally made them give way was when Weir chose to publicize his sexual orientation. My opinion is that Wikipedia should accurately summarize the news sources as they publish, without holding things back based on Wikipedia-specific notions of "ethics". Our ethics should be to give the reader the same information he would have if he had ready access to the full range of copyrighted sources. Wnt (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian ethics. Hah! Seems like a running set of lectures at every Wikimania. The more recent set of discussions on the sexual identity subject I have been following. I'm also a bit concerned about paying overmuch attention to what a BLP subject has to say about their Wikipedia articles as it regards sourcing and notability. It's not the pedia's job to make such pages acceptable to the subject, IMHO, though a strong concern for verifiability is paramount. In the past, I think we've focused overmuch on notability and not enough on verifiability. Moving into the next decade, strong sourcing is crucial if our work is to be accepted as more than a starting point for readers. BusterD (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Anthony Bologna

I tried to add to the article from the sources as much as possible the things I though were appropriate. Some things, such as the 2004 incident, I deemed inappropriate (see my reasoning on the talk page). You probably disagree, which is fine, and want to add back in, so feel free until there is some sort of consensus. I'm not going to edit the article for a while and let you and other editors shape it. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 2004 incident you may want to weigh in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anthony_Bologna#AfD_.2B_2004_Republican_National_Convention_lawsuits LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 United States listeriosis outbreak from cantaloupes

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Protect IP Act

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Protect IP Act". Thank you. --Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Verified Interview with Biographic Subjects (VIBS)

I like how you think outside the box and come up with creative ideas. In my opinion, you've got the start of something workable, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. To me at least, the place to start would be with Wikinews. We need to develop a credible standard that Wiki-journalists can meet, either through accreditation with professional societies or with an OTRS-like system you describe in your proposal. Then, we could "dispatch" authorized news personnel to conduct the interviews or to track down information. I deal with this problem all the time. For example, today on Brownie Mary, one of her alleged caregivers in RL contradicted a rumor published in a newspaper. They also added information that would be great for the biography, but cannot be verified in any RS. In such a case, we should have a system where a Wikinews reporter could set up an interview with the person, where their identity could be verified in some way, and a transcript of the interview could be made available. In the age of social media and Skype, it should even be possible to produced accompanying video and audio archives of the interview. There's a lot of opportunity here, and this method could give Wikipedia the status of a RS that is so sorely lacks. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't really feeling ambitious enough to try to make VIBS happen; it's just I think that's the right way whereas changing WP:V is the wrong way. To me VIBS seems closely allied with OTRS in the sense that (a) you need to have a trusted volunteer verify the identity of the person and that they were actually interviewed (b) possibly using documents that are not public. It seems very similar to the main OTRS activities of trying to verify that the author of a document actually released it under a free license and also of talking to dissatisfied biographic subjects who challenge the information about them. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Anangelic script in a Rolling Stones audience?.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Anangelic script in a Rolling Stones audience?.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreements / Disagreements

I've looked over our past interactions based on our agreement at User_talk:Jimbo, and discovered that while we disagree on editorial points as encyclopaedia editors, many of our non-editorial interests and perhaps even opinions are closely aligned. How's that for how economics changes the relationships between ideals and beliefs :) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wnt/Copyright Alliance

I have userfied the Copyright Alliance page to User:Wnt/Copyright Alliance where you can edit it and add sources at your leisure. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Stop Online Piracy Act, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page PCWorld (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) 11:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act

I have made a comment on your proposed DYK hook for the article Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act here. You may like to respond. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But fortunately, it looks like I didn't have to. ;) Wnt (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Wnt, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited King of the Gypsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Travellers (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) 11:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity due to ignorance - just what the source says. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the case - besides, it looks closed already. I just thought a good point was made that the pattern of IPs (whether there are some unique to one username or the other) should indeed be disclosed in such investigations. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[[[Santorum]] Re-Organisation

Keep up the good work!93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		To Wnt, don't be disheartened. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to Rcej and invited him to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize!

I cannot explain my rash, rude and dismissive behavior regarding Diffuse panbronchiolitis; I truly am sorry, and have restored your edits. Thx! :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, I was also a bit frustrated from various small WikiBattles of late; thanks for the apology. Wnt (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Methamphetamine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (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) 10:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, this bot could be reprogrammed to automatically distinguish mercury from Mercury and fix the link itself... though it's probably more trouble than it's worth. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&diff=475795227&oldid=475785878 – I just wanted to make sure that you see my comment as soon as possible. Your claims against Delicious carbuncle are severe, and I feel that it's best in resolve the misunderstanding as soon as possible. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I read that in a reasonable way - even if it were interpreted the way you say, it would still be an expression of some sort of bias. Note that the 'facts' you're going by are phantoms - I found the original image from which all the WR sniping originates and it is just something silly-looking, nothing more, which gives no hint of the various things the crowd there have taken from it, which exist solely in their imaginations. But WP:Linking to external harassment applies here, and I may well just be contributing to the troubles by going for the bait. Telling a Wikipedian not to cite his sources... they deserve to get HAL 9000ed for that. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&diff=475805705&oldid=475804940 – Would you be alright with this. I disapprove of censorship, but they shouldn't censor only the rebuttal alone. Currently, people viewing the page history are only going to be able to see your argument without being able to see a sufficient counter-argument, and that's going to affect the viewers. They shouldn't have used the suppression tool in the first place. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that revdelling is extreme, as the thing is after all only a link and partial quote to stuff that, unfortunately, comes up high on this person's list of Google search results. The Examiner even has an article about it. But I have to acknowledge that making it was contrary to the WP:Linking to external harassment policy, and given the objection and the fact that I simply don't want to help these people drum someone out of Wikipedia I won't oppose it. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images

Hi. This case is closed, so please do not post anything on the case pages. If you want to post your comments on the case, please post them here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC

Hi, Wnt. This is unrelated to the Fæ discussion; indeed, I think I've said all I have to say on that subject.

Because you participated in last spring’s discussions on WT:REVDEL about possibly removing RD5, one of the RevDel criteria, you might like to weigh in on this RfC. It basically puts forth a proposal from last May, which was supposed to become a live RfC around that time but never did. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC

Wnt, in my opinion, your comments accusing others of harassment for engaging in dispute resolution ("I'm reasonably persuaded that harassment is the beginning of the motive here." and "The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights.") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are indeed a fallacy when used to disprove a concrete allegation; however, they may be fairly used to determine when a process becomes abusive or outside of policy. Specifically, as I've answered before, WP:CANVASS is in its entirety an ad hominem argument; nonetheless it is the applicable policy where the entrance of editors from Wikipedia Review threads is concerned.

As you know, the issue of harassment is relevant to Fae because there is dispute whether he "vanished" to avoid potential sanction or to avoid harassment; I believe the latter. As you know, I documented this harassment on WR, but added to Fae's distress by doing so and fairly much violated WP:Linking to external harassment - which is a worse breach of policy than anything I've seen Fae credibly accused of in his entire RfC. There comes a point when you're dealing with a group of people associated with an external site who accuse a respected director and admin of posting pictures of himself having sex (false), posting a naked photo of a little boy (false), misrepresenting sources (balderdash), evading "voluntary" RfC sanctions (implausible) ... eventually you have to respect yourself and apply the ad hominem standard that these people are simply not arguing in good faith. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop voting on BLP issues

Hi - due to your very vocal rejection to what is one of the primary policies on en wikipedia in regards to living people , please consider ceasing to vote in regard to such discussions. Youreallycan 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that resolved itself pretty quickly! Wnt (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mention

I mentioned you - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fleming_Facebook_post - Youreallycan 04:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

General points on editing

The point you raised here is not specific to the unblock request, but a more general question. I agree that standards on what constitutes plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing varies a lot, and that this causes problems, but that unblock request is not the right place to discuss it. You also raise a good point about how making single edits using a single source is different to writing based on pulling together what is contained in several different sources. I suggest you raise some of these points at a location such as WT:Plagiarism or WT:Close paraphrasing. You might get some answers there. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WHACK!

For opening yet another thread prolonging the ridiculous Mbz1 saga and bringing it back up when it was finally starting to calm down, I hereby award you this rare triple trout with bracketing minnows': {{minnow}}{{trout}}{{trout}}{{trout}}{{minnow}} The community here can decide to ban a user for any behavior it sees as disruptive. That's how consensus based decision making works, as I'm sure you are already aware. The ban had strong support, and Mbz is now acting purely as a troll in their continuing needling over at Meta about this, and you've just added fuel to that fire by opening this new discussion, so lets add Don't feed the trolls to that as well. File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about the user; it's about the policy. I think our policy should keep the projects separate, but by now it doesn't sound like this suggestion was eagerly received. But if we can't keep our wandering hands off Meta, how can we expect them to avoid getting into discussions about what happens here? Especially when that's a lot closer to Meta's purpose than to Wikipedia's.

My feeling about "feeding the trolls" is that a) Mbz1 is really, really bad at arguing his case, turning everything into a sorry history of the whole long dispute from a strong POV (which is an amazingly common and universally unproductive response in many forums about individuals' political and legal matters) and b) a block or ban is worthless if it's not done for the right reason. People here seem to think that the point of blocking someone is to keep them from editing; that anything allowing him to edit or make his case is bad. But I think if you're going to have them, the more important point of blocks should be to instruct where the line is drawn, using the power of the block only as a way of getting extra attention. And c) The idea that we can make Mbz1 shut up if we want to is a phantasm. Have you searched "Gwen Gale" recently? I just did and it's an eye-opener. She (and her real name) is plastered all over ED, blogspot, all kinds of places. If Mbz1 is responsible for all that then I see why he wouldn't have a prayer of being unblocked - but that's not the point. The point is, if we had better policies, blocked him for stuff which is clearly unreasonable and not blocked him for stuff that wasn't so unreasonable, we might not have antagonized him, might have talked him into using established processes only, something. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just BTW ... you do realize Mbz1 is a she? It's not a hugely well-kept secret. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - it isn't that important to me and sometimes I forget which is which. Silly pronouns. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Charlie wilkes

I don't really follow what goes on at ArbCom too closely (it's not really part of my job, which I consider to be creating quality content and bringing existing content up in quality), but I do see a much greater involvement on Will Beback's part than mine (I prefer to review unblocks de novo).

That unblock denial was ten months ago; if he'd like to get unblocked based on the outcome of the TimidGuy case I'd prefer that he post a new request specifically citing it, and that another admin who has had nothing to do with the case pass on it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he's paying attention to the site any more - I just didn't think his block was right, and think it should be ended for the sake of our reputation. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that we should make such a symbolic unblock, I think the best place to discuss that is an AN thread. As perhaps an outgrowth of, as I put it, administering from the front (i.e., doing a lot of my admin work at AIV, UAA and CAT:RFU), I feel the blocked users are the only ones who should initiate unblock requests. But, if consensus differs for a particular user, then we do that. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

On consideration, perhaps the RfC ArbCom has requested would be the best place. Any suggested wording can be put through the screen of which blocks - Charlie wilkes or Will Beback - it would uphold. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't

Did you just ball gag Wikipedia?[29] Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you recognize that, apparently I'm not quite as bad an artist as I think. ;) Wnt (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it, but why did you use the yellow background? Is that supposed to be like a foil medal? Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was supposed to be a barnstar, so some kind of star seemed in order. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But...

United States free speech exceptions. Dru of Id (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had my way this would be one of Wikipedia's shortest articles... (of course, fixing history retroactively is not one of my strong points) Wnt (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Limits on superpowers are a fact of adulthood, unfortunately. :D Dru of Id (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen

It just occurred to me after learning of the glucojasinogen incident, that there is no inherent inaccuracy in the term, any more than in the introduction of any other neologism which is introduced anywhere neologisms are introduced. Certainly nobody was put at risk (other than the journal authors who may have plagiarized and certainly did not fact check that part of their work.) But nobody was even potentially harmed except to the extent that time may have been wasted, were they? I'm not saying that excuses it or that we shouldn't always avoid (introducing) neologisms, but this seems much milder than subtle vandalism such as altering chembox numbers, for example. 71.212.231.71 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was amid a bunch of gobbledygook - for example, "intrapectine" is also a made up word, as far as I know. And the statements about the relation of the two? Probably invalid, though without defining them it's hard to prove that. ;) Now the term did have a use - it made a point that journals' carelessness about plagiarism is not as harmless as it might seem if you assume that the people copying will only commit the venial sin of failing to reword good sources they understand, rather than the more significant error of publishing text of which they have no comprehension at all. To me this differs from "normal" plagiarism more than "normal" plagiarism differs from proper scholarship. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Cyperus rotundus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serapion (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) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! To closely paraphrase Monty Python, "I don't knoooooooow..." (source didn't specify) Wnt (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I tend to blunder around with this particular Wikidebate; I've decided they're coming up with a decent list of questions without me. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (Even so, I poked my nose in in the end...^[30] always have some struvite of wisdom to bestow, I guess) Wnt (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

SOPA economics

Regarding your SOPA comment, you've unfortunately been misinformed about "which is of relatively low economic impact on their company" for Google. If you actually examine what was going on with SOPA, you will see a provision involving infringement "safe harbor" standards for sites, which could have a profound effect on the multibillion dollar litigation involving big media companies vs. YouTube. This is simply a fact. You should wonder why you don't know it. Also, note the "social conjugation" involved - "I get a huge donation because I am so wonderful. You get a huge donation for your corrupt influence buying". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I should apologize that I never did sort this out in my mind for sure, but I respect your opinion and I'll remember it in the future. But there is still no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's non-political effects by themselves are worth far more to $500,000 to Google and its founders. People type Google searches because they want results, and at least one time out of four Wikipedia is the best result I can find - even when I'm searching for things to add to Wikipedia! Wnt (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	On a website where a lot of a-holes and douchebags run the show, I greatly appreciate your sense of humour and light heartedness! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As one of America's foremost philosophers, Happy Harry Hardon, once said, "That was deep. Oh no, not again. The creature stirs..." :) Wnt (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tuareg

Hi Wnt,

I don't know enough about the Tuareg to tell you if those edits are factual or not, but from my interactions with Ameno I do believe that he is a Tuareg individual, although I could always be mistaken, and of course it's always possible that he could be a Tuareg and *also* be pulling our legs. -ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin material

Serving Wikipedia at ground level

If you EVER find yourself at WP:RFA please give me a shout. I will !vote yes for sure. I appreciate all you do for this crazy place. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you do, I will have significant questions for how you fail to disengage with trolls and have effectively collaborated in speculating about my personal life as a result. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, for one I'm flattered, and thanks, and for two - I would not find such questions easy, but in order to write people off as trolls rather than engaging with them, I need to see tangible evidence that the community clearly recognizes them as such. I haven't really considered an admin campaign: among other things, since I prefer stating my opinions over diplomacy, I doubt I'd come anywhere close to the very high threshold required. More to the point, I think that the ability to participate in such discussions with such welcome response is worth more than the actual admin tools, provided that those who are admins are willing to implement a consensus. But thanks! Wnt (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disengaging from a troll falls somewhere on a continuum in time; nobody is expected to know immediately who is and who is not a troll. It helps, of course. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that the editor in question started a thread "Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations?" at WP:AN to argue that he was the victim of such because people complained; claimed that anyone disputing his position forced him to repost a bunch of ... stuff ... about Fae, including an admission that one of his most outrageous allegations was in fact never true, and even so none of the admins stepped in and said, hey wait a minute, if there's ever a time to worry about personal attacks and civility and unsubstantiated allegations, we should put an end to this sorry scene. I honestly thought at some point the admins would have had enough - but it never happened! I thought they would have had enough of that RfC/U [31] long before then, for that matter. But I still see no evidence in these records that anyone ever ruled that there was anything but "no consensus" on the dispute, let alone a declaration that trolling was involved. And unless people decide someone is a troll, until it is clear he won't actually win a policy dispute, how can I just ignore him? Wnt (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Public domain newsreels". Thank you.

Trayvon Martin and marijuana

Would you come back to the Trayvon Martin article talk page again to address the marijuana reference being included. There appears to be consensus, but one person in talking in bullying tones that if it is added again, it will be removed. There are references for the marijuana and suspension. Why can't it be included in order to keep the article balanced? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Wnt/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but despite my sporadic enjoyment of trying to figure out human behavior, I have a distaste for actual surveying of it in this way. I feel like standardized surveying and categorization reduces me to someone else's preconceptions... besides, Crowish started that one and shortly after I wandered in it fizzled rapidly, so there's not much to say. If someone wants plain feedback, rather than to evaluate me as a demographic, I'll say that the problem with "dispute resolution" is that there is no straightforward way for editors to say, "hey, I'm having a problem here and I want some people to weigh in". Sure, there's the helpme template which might get editors to wander in, but it has iffy results because people can't just skim over the list of conversations. There are specialized noticeboards for sourcing, BLP and so forth. There's "third opinion" and there's mediation and there's the admin noticeboard. But what there isn't is a "general practitioner" to guide the patient around between all these specialists. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Casimir effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Van der Waals (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) 10:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting the author. I wouldn't trust myself to necessarily get make the right assumption... Wnt (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The user page you created

Hi, you may have noticed I deleted the user page you created. I have now filed an SPI on the matter, however, and you are welcome to comment there if you have more to add. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you have that going much more carefully than I was ever going to bother with myself. Obviously my ad hoc page was not as authoritative as one done through the full process. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited Easter Bunny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pliny (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) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Another case where I cited a source that was not specific. I don't like to make assumptions to disambiguate. Wnt (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Glucojasinogen

You might want to appraise yourself of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14. __meco (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wnt. I hope that wasn't too abrupt. It was a cute idea, and I laughed, but do you agree it was overall probably sending the wrong signal? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as sending the wrong signal because the vandal has no control over whether his additions end up being copied into a scientific publication. Besides, that particular IP is probably long gone. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Right; I was more concerned about the effect on others, rather than the IP. It's not a big deal, though. Put it back if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting some comment about your SOPA/PIPA comments

Hi; I'm a graduate student writing a bit of journalism about Wikipedia's choice to blackout the website back in January. I found your comment on the Post-mortem page (about a "Captain Bravo" moment) very interesting -- was wondering if you'd like to share a few more thoughts on the subject? Let me know on my user talk page whenever you get a chance... Kybard (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

N.B. this refers to meta:English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout/Post-mortem#Responding_to_concerns where I said that "My feeling after seeing the rapid collapse of the bill is that we've had something of a Castle Bravo moment, finding our political impact to be much stronger than we imagined. Unfortunately, I think we're going to face fallout from that, because so many different groups are going to want to own that power..." But I didn't follow up on this prediction; I was sort of thinking someone might ... and maybe this is that person? Wnt (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in reference to that conversation I was talking about --- I am on strike over the fact that out of a very long nasty disruptive battleground of a conversation, the only person sanctioned was User:Niabot over a harmless joke. With the possible exception of better documenting alternative outlets I'm out of here for at least the 48 hours she's blocked, probably longer. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#Niabot_block_review I've ended the "strike", as the block was clearly recognized as wrong by a wide margin. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

Niabot

If you want to continue the discussion, please do it at WP:AN; ANI is for issues requiring urgent admin intervention, which this clearly isn't. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there are many things in life more useful than to play that game any further. Wnt (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

Hi, Wnt. I've edited the Johnny Cash (disambiguation) page again, removing lots of entries, and I shall explain why here. It may be worthwhile you reading WP:DAB for an overview of what disambiguation pages are for and how they should be structured. They are not for listing every article in a certain topic (that's why we have categories) and they are not for listing every article that features "Johnny Cash" in the title. They should only be used when the title of one article can be confused with another – realistically speaking, someone arriving at the Johnny Cash article will be looking for the musician, but that article name may also be confused with the song of the same name. Anything else is unambiguous – our naming conventions largely remove the need for disambiguation pages by disambiguating in the article titles – therefore pages such as The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) isn't confused with the Johnny Cash article. I hope you understand, and please don't revert changes back without first discussing. Cheers, matt (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I left those entries because they could reasonably be confused, plus a link to the discography for the reader's convenience. It seems arbitrary to say that "Smokin' Johnny Cash" can't be confused, but "Johnnycash machine" can be; I just made a different call. [32] In any case, this was the result of an ongoing conversation elsewhere, not personal interest, so I'll leave it to you people to continue arguing over it on your own. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Refactor, archive or just strike

I come seeking advice. I know better than to refactor another editor's comments. I also know better than to get on the wrong side of editors that express wild and outlandish feelings that they have. I guess you could say that I have taken on the role as one of the Acting Neighborhood Watch Editors for the Trayvon article. Usually I just strike comments that are "out of the blue" or that eminate from IP's that are just makng a snide blog-like comment and are attacking or name-calling in nature. It (striking) is a protective response that I use to keep the working environment clean and collaborative. To me, striking sends a message...but, at the same time, it doesn't destroy the flow of the conversation. The more we discredit the undercurrent of attack and taking sides and name calling, the less chance there is that the article will begin that slippery slide into WP:Battleground. I would benefit from your thoughts.```Buster Seven Talk 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a huge amount of disagreement in the article already. I always see the conflict as inclusionist-versus deletionist - even though I know some people push for inclusion or deletion of details based on the viewpoint they favor, my desire is always to see as much information as possible covered. I think it is better to let people battle it out a bit in comments, then "hat" anything that gets too far out of hand, deleting nothing, than to force them to redirect their annoyance toward changes in the article itself. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

[The Grand Inquistor]

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a well written e-mail, and I largely agree - with the exception that so long as someone is able to drive away editors to force his way on Wikipedia, he cannot safely be ignored. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Copybio

Ok I've made changes to Banned From Television so that its no longer copied material. Please let me know if there is still stuff that needs changing because I don't want this article to get deleted. Thanks. DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(Responded at DrAcHeNWiNgZz) Wnt (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok first of all is it just the section, Volume I that you have the issue with? Second of all, what that guy wrote is basically the "plot" of Volume I in chronological order. I can't change the facts. What is written down is what occurs in Volume I and if you read them both they are hardly the same thing at all. DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not even a WP:reliable source in the first place - it's just a self-published review. Ordinarily that's a big thing in itself, but it's not as important as the copyright issue. And while you can't change the facts you certainly could write them many different ways. I'm sorry, but that section is going to have to get chopped down harshly, and written from scratch, not from a cut-and-paste. And believe me, if it goes to the noticeboard you'll get a harsher reception. A lot of admins would have blocked you right away. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok fair enough then. But I have seen the film so I really don't need a source for the plot section, as is the case with most other films on this wiki, they don't have sources for the actual plot itself. In any event, I'll start from scratch the Volume I part of the plot and sort it out.DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright I've just wrote the entire thing out from scratch again on word and will now be pasting it onto the wiki page. DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not altogether sure my opinion about that is right, so maybe I'll put it off. ;) Wnt (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

all opinions are welcome...--KarlB (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Ok I'll get onto that. In the mean time would it be possible for you to delete this page of mine: Thank you.--DrAcHeNWiNgZz (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I haven't actually done this, but I understand you can request speedy deletion of a user page with {{db-self}} - see WP:Speedy deletion. You might give a rationale that you're "cleaning up copyright issues" or something. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Driveby/talk page stalker – deleted as WP:CSD#G7. matt (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Osborne

Re your comment on the George Osborne page -- you'll likely note a big revert, removing all of that material again. YRC gets pissed off when I revert him, so I'm not going to do it again (at least for now), but I'm disturbed by it: he's reverting back to a version in December, thus reverting more than 4 months of editing by 17 different editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Noting diff - in relation to my complaint and attempt at dispute resolution with the user at User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Another_following_revertYoureallycan 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

From history I'm expecting to oppose Youreallycan's position - problem is, his actual edit makes the article 19k longer! And as an inclusionist, well, I'm not going to oppose that altogether without some really good reason. But that change did take out the "pasty tax", which as I said on the talk page, is the only thing I ever heard about this person. ;) I'm suspicious that some people on one or both sides are taking out stuff based on ideological motives, but I don't know enough about British politics to unravel it - I just want the final article to include everyone's facts, pro or con. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

George Osborne

I have an admirer who keeps chopping out facts, whole paragraphs of sourced facts, from the article. If you think anything in the article is now POV, please do me a huge favour and change it. If it looks OK to you, tell Youreallycan so. I may have to make a complaint about his persistent vandalism of the article. My additions were POV; he is just vandalising. And, if you do, could you also tell Youreallycan that you have agreed to. He has no right to chop out entire paragraphs of stuff just because he thinks it reflects badly on Osborne. I admit to being POV on Osborne, and I have tried to rectify my additions, but he will not even make an admission of being POV the other way. Sorry to trouble you. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, your version is shorter than his, and there are a lot of edits where you take stuff out. Some might be justified. You'd make it a whole lot easier for one another and anybody else if you'd discuss point by point the stuff you're taking out, rather than leaving it to edits that change the article so drastically that with Wikipedia's crummy default "diff"er at least it's hard for me to make heads or tails out of anything. And I'm having the problem that some of the edits I'd like to restore, like the "Real George Osborne" thing that seemed to have a passable media mention if I recall, are just so darn dull that I don't want to get around to it. It would be a whole lot easier if the two of you could agree to truce, put in all the stuff either one of you want, then argue about what to delete from a full and comprehensive copy. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wnt. Yeah, I tried to reword stuff that was POV, made expansions to make counterpoints explicit, etc. That has not been enough for Youreallycan, he just ignored all the adjustments I'd made and, without so much as an explanation or discsussion, mangled the article with a massive reversion to eliminate stuff he doesn't like. I've reworded my little GDP-chart title to make it neutral, but they don't want a pretty picture of how GDP has fared on an article on the, er, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Pretty basic bit of info, you would have thought, and best represented graphically, but no. Apparently not. It is not to be mentioned, nor is the News International stuff. It's ridiculous, the fact they are both complete and utter... Well, never mind that, but it makes it simply even more irritating. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you will notice, that everything is sourced. I could put in a dozen mainstream-media cites for some of the stuff, but they still wouldn't be interested. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I am just so sick and tired of them I will simply request for you to take a look at the reverted article, what I reverted it to, and use your own judgment. It is all already sourced for you, but if you want to further tone down any language etc. be my guest. Remember, News International and its relationship with the police and politicians is one of the biggest news stories of the year over here. We have an ongoing, high-level inquiry into it, and the Prime Minister is appearing before it. Osborne got off with an order to only make a written submission—so far—but these two do not even want it mentioned, nor do they own up to their own POV. I have admitted and have attempted to address mine, so who does that make the more reasonable party? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This reversion is the one I want you to look at and work with. It still has my little GDP chart with completely neutral title, seems to upset them anyway. And I wanted to add the above article about Osborne facing pressure to appear in person before the Leveson Inquiry. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of you getting this into the article? Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To an outsider it sounds like he had somebody over for dinner. It would be a tough sell to repeat the Guardian's argument there in entirety; it might reasonably be called a very small detail of the Murdoch issue. Also, in this specific case there's an issue to consider of whether the other media, as competitors to Murdoch's news outlets, are truly impartial (I don't know enough about British media to say, but it makes me wary. The one bit of meat I find in the story is:

'But Labour MP Chris Bryant, a prominent critic of News International over phone hacking, said: "After all these revelations it feels like there were two halves of a single clan: in the political wing were Osborne, Cameron, Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt, and in the media wing were Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Andy Coulson. They seem to have been completely blind to the ethical considerations and to have forgotten that in government they are there for the whole country and not just for the clan."'

Depending on the prominence of this argument, this may indeed be worth including. Is anyone else quoting this? Wnt (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a delicious quote, but I must restrict myself only to drawing attention to things that I like, sadly. I admit again that I simply cannot stand George Osborne or, indeed, Tories generally. Utter and complete scum, almost to the last. The fact that Osborne is so utterly useless merely fuels my fire. Imagine you had someone running your economy whose only job they'd ever got for themselves was folding towels at a more upmarket version of Wal Mart. That is George Osborne. I laugh, I really do, but I keep in mind that better than a fifth of our young people are out of work. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

!

What a post. You're on my userpage. B^e——C_ritical 20:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am honored, truly ... I'm just not sure a barnstar for soapboxing will go over well with all audiences. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 Brendon ishere 16:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with [33] is that it relies very, very, very heavily on the direct interpretation of primary sources. I'd be more than a little skeptical of some revisionism like changing the meaning of "beat", nonetheless, I'm certainly not qualified to say whether Muhammad's friend slapping a woman on the back of the neck is domestic violence or some kind of playful gesture like modern back-slapping. There are even surplus quotes in there about regarding women like domestic animals which are repellent but not strictly related to the topic of the article. Last but not least, there's the issue that apparently "hadith" are apparently sort of like the Christian apocrypha, with many Muslims not even believing in many of them. It's true that Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are, according to our article on the latter, the two "most authentic" collections of hadith - even so, that same article goes on to say that "Shia Muslims dismiss many parts of [the 'Sahih' Muslim] as fabrications or untrustworthy". (You also cite the Sunnan Abu Dawud which is described as fourth. So I feel like your edit eclipses the more scholarly commentary with quite a few minutiae; I don't mind detail, but you may indeed have pushed into "original synthesis". Some of that - like "It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife like a slave, for he might sleep with her the same evening." to be supportive of domestic violence - is certainly debatable interpretation.

That said, I appreciate the effort you put into compiling that stuff. There might be a way to rework it for a more specific article about hadith concerning domestic violence or something. But you're still going to need some actual secondary sources to escort that stuff, or it's going to run into more of the same opposition. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter is a Girl

This relates to something you made a comment on. I put it on Wikid77's page and I don't know how to do links so here it is. So you understand, I had 3 days of a block to read the many WP:XXXX that were thrown at me, to then understand them. So while it might be hard for you to believe that someone can read in 3 days a bunch of WP:XXXX rules, it is not impossible. Actually I didn't have to read many, just the ones that were used against me to have me blocked. As I found, they were being totally misquoted against me. So yeah, you might find it hard to believe, you might also want to go to the Alkaline Diet article and look at how many people said exactly the same thing as I did in the past on the article. Is that hard to believe? Don't bother answering, just know that you might want to look at the history and deal with it. I don't understand why this was taken off Jimbo Wales' page by someone other than him with a note hard to believe. Isn't that his choice? Yes I would like him to discuss it with me. As I put it on his page with the express comment that the people (like you) who are in between him and me are the problem. So you making a personal judgement that someone can't read a few Wiki WP:XXXX rules in 3 days gives you the right to ignore my very detailed comments. Sorry but this is exactly the reason I contacted Jimbo and not you. Maximus. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(To be clear, the above is addressed at Wikid77, so there's not much I can say here that I didn't say at the time. But I should make a note to add the gout related usage of alkaline diet, for which there is a certain limited amount of evidence and a lot of popular usage. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Plagiarism issues

Thanks for your good faith and kind comment. In 2008 it was not a problem and even the article was chosen as Good article. However, I was not active in the article for a lot of time. Therefor, I may check the article completely in future to find whether that parts are important or not. Thanks again.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned in a ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Michaeldsuarez – I'm just letting you know that I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/Fae

Your recent post to the evidence talk page was in no way acceptable behaviour, within this case or on any other page on this project. Consider this your one and only warning. Seddon ^talk 16:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(Concerned [34] - Replied on Seddon's talk page at User_talk:Seddon#Warning) Wnt (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your solution is - perhaps - one step above an ArbCom statement that "Fae is desysopped because homosexuals are unwelcome on Wikipedia"." was what crossed the line by a mile not just a yard, and not simply within this case but what is generally acceptable on this project.

I have assumed that such a comment was not made with conviction and was simply being pointy towards other users, but this case has more than enough emotion. Such divisive throwaway statements are extremely eroding to the working environment of this case especially given the content of it. Accusing people of witch hunt's I would have considered borderline at best anyway let alone when you combine it with such an inflammatory comment. Seddon ^talk 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I saw that not as a rhetorical excess but as a fair and direct comparison. As I understood his comment, Fred Huxtable suggested we surrender a core principle - WP:NOTCENSORED - because it arouses offsite opposition. Our acceptance of homosexuals without discrimination is also a core principle, and it also can arouse offsite opposition. (perhaps does - which is currently a topic of contention at the proceeding) If we started surrendering core principles, it is possible that we would surrender that also. And in practice, I think that many Wikipedia topics related to homosexuality involve sexually explicit content, as was relevant to the Ash RfC/U. This partial overlap was the reason why I added " - perhaps -". Wnt (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more clear that I was quoting Fred Huxtable himself when I used the phrase "witch hunt" - my intention there was only to summarize his argument in the preceding paragraph. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it's Feyd Huxtable, not Fred. Don't know if he's the sort to get pissed off if you get his name wrong. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, your final sentance is not in anyway a helpful statement to make given the nature of this case. There are plenty of useful comparisons that could be made that wont be so inflammatory, that could lead to people misreading or misinterpreting what you have said and actually could potentially be used to cloud any potential outcome of this case. Being honest that particular discussion is something of a tangent to this case and I very much doubt the arb's will be tackling this so it doesn't particularly add anything. Seddon ^talk 17:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that opinion is forming against the proposal, and at this point I would be content to omit or rework the comment, but I do object to the accusation of violating your ground rules. Whether or not this sentence is "inflammatory", in my opinion it is not actually uncivil. As I've said above, the comparison was not an emotional excess but a logical analogy. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Section 2257 legal note

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I have updated Philippe's (WMF) discussion of section 2257 with legal note .Jking (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's about as clear as mud, which is a good sign it's probably accurate. ;) (Actually, it's quite well written, and probably as clear as the topic allows... not that I'd be qualified to tell, though...) Wnt (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Mentor_issue

You have been mentioned - regards - Youreallycan 22:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!

Hello Wnt!

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have already checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't edit about music much. Besides, I've been spending waaay too much time on Wikipedia of late arguing in the situation leading up to a certain ArbCom case - I need to scale back considerably and focus on doing some writing that actually pays... especially if this goes the wrong way, at which point it'll definitely be time to turn one's attention to the lifeboats. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Supportive of Fae"

I see you are counting heads on Fae's RfArb, and count me as one of his supporters. I'm curious what I said here that you interpreted so. Diff please?→StaniStani^{COI: Wikipediocracy}  22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. You appear as voter #4 under "Outside view by PaoloNapolitano: A website which Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have no control over, harbours harassment of high-profile Wikipedia editors. The sole purpose of this page appears to be attacking Wikipedia and harassing high-profile users. The most alarming about the page are it's subforums who promote, and are devoted to harassment of Wikipedia users. Because of this, Wikipedia and the WMF should discourage use of the website. The other draft you signed was one by VolunteerMarek saying that that another statement (PaoloNapolitano's, it turns out) was out of place. I see now that your "support" was not actually supportive, but when I was quickly going through all the votes, all I saw was your name on the list of the above statement which I saw as supportive. I'll amend my statement in recognition of this. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a warning just letting you know

I amputated part of what was a tangential spiralling festering thread of bitter doom, but just wanted you to know it wasn't just your comments that got the chop. Talc crossed the line as to what is acceptable. Seddon ^talk 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You have made this aware to me previously, but these conversations need to be had with far more tact than you have shown. Being very honest with you here, the way you post things like you did and the reason why I have warned you previously, is that the way it comes across is that your almost trying to entrap people. You arn't discussing the issue, you add gasoline to it and make things worse and undermine any potential good that your trying to get out of it. My redaction stands. Seddon ^talk 20:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes discussion

Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012#My_concerns – They're talking about you and how your reviewer rights were removed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

notification

Hi - you have been mentioned by me, and another user in this discussion - Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012#My_concerns - regards - Youreallycan 21:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My PC2012 page

Hi Wnt, I'm trying to put together a FAQ for my PC2012 subpage. If it's okay with you, I want to make the point that we can expect people to lose their reviewing privileges because of their views (unless there's consensus to change PC before November 1) rather than because of their actions, because it happened during the first trial. At the time your reviewer hat was taken away back during the PC trials, had you actually participated as a reviewer in the trial? If so, roughly how much? Am I correct in understanding that you were given the hat without asking for it? Do you know if anyone else lost their reviewing privileges? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I accepted one or two edits to test the process and get a notion of what it looked like. I actually never asked to be given the right; nonetheless, having it taken away for stating my opinion was indeed a useful "troubleshoot". I think I remember someone else had it revoked by the same admin around the same time but I don't remember who. Also note that I never have had nor looked for the rollbacker right - it seems like a very specialized vandal-fighting tool that is only useful if you patrol for them very specifically. A small part of the weirdness about this proposal is that it would seem like many people would be getting rollbacker simply so that they can review edits, and it sounds like a tool that can lead people into trouble if they're not careful. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

I've been reading a lot of your comments lately, and I'm impressed by your thoughtful analysis of things. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paraguaná Refinery Complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropical Storm Isaac (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) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All the names in the world and they reused one four times? Wnt (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More Aether in glass than air

Do you mean per volume or per gram?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Per volume. There is a difference in the refractive index of glass versus air - according to refractive index glasses tend to be 1.4 or more, whereas liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen have [35] 1.2236 and [36] 1.196 respectively. The refractive index of air itself is 1.000293 - if you imagine condensing 22 liters down to 14 cc's to match the density of water, and do simple multiplication (not sure that's valid; in any case it's not a real physical process) you get 1.46. The refractive index per mass differs, but not by a very large amount.

Mind you, I really do not know the modelling by which some people have described electromagnetic fields like a curvature in space; but I think that they should curve around charges just as regular spacetime for gravity curves around masses. So this surplus electromagnetic "spacetime", wrapped up more around the increased density of atoms (mostly) and different type of atoms (somewhat) of glass, could be, in poetic terms, described as an aether. I think. As I said, I added that comment in the hope someone would clarify where my understanding is deficient. :) Wnt (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So does my notion of a black hole being so dense that all the aether is forced out of that space jive with this idea?165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume from here - No. The black hole curves regular four-dimensional spacetime according to its mass; if it has charge then this bends the paths of charged particles moving near it, so that would be a curvature in this other dimension (as best as I understand it) which I've compared to an aether. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonder why no one replied. Thanks165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I made that comment pretty late - I think a lot of participants read only the most recent questions. (I'm not so good about keeping track of the older ones myself) Wnt (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding Wikilinks...

I believe the consensus is that it's best to add them as a new post, rather than change somebody else's post. Otherwise, it can cause confusion, like "Why is the OP asking us about a topic he linked to in his own post ?". In this case, it also makes my subsequent link to the blood-brain barrier article look redundant, when it was not. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was harmless, but if it bothers someone I won't then. From his comment it was obvious he'd read the JC virus article and presumably the other one also or else I'd have left a comment about it. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, no biggie. Cheers ! StuRat (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Wnt. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Juries

The time of day that people edit is much less important, in my opinion, than truly random selection of peers. If you call for a jury after the parties and their controversy are known, then there is no way they can possibly be impartial. You have to recruit into a jury pool in advance or it's just an RFC/U. —Cupco 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the real RfC/U is that it seems like the neutral editors one would hope such a thing would recruit are scarce, and there's no way to identify much less defer to them over the ones who are biased. If we formally recruit random editors, and recognize them as such during such a proceeding, then we get around that. It's true that it would be nice to have a jury pool and march them neatly into the proceeding when you want them, but unlike with IRL juries we can't compel service. Now, maybe if we identified "these people actually want to be jurors" first, then canvass them for a specific case second, we'd have a slightly less self-selected group than doing the two steps at once, but I don't immediately see an easy way to do this and still have it be all that random. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, just ask people whether they can serve in advance. If you have trouble getting the 200 or so you would need for a sample of 15 to be statistically random, make one of those badge/pin/book-with-coffee-stain userbox things, or start asking at RfA whether candidates have volunteered, or both. Additional reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights#Juries —Cupco 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My, but some people feel determined to get AN/I interested in the Refdesk. But they shouldn't be... Wnt (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancillary copyright and Google

Since you wrote the article, I hope you'll not be too upset at a Reference Desk-style question :-) How will this be able to affect Google? Do they have servers in Germany as well as in the USA? Unless they're relying on German servers, I don't see how this will affect them, since US law would permit this as a kind of fair use. Talkback or reply at my talk page, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I previously had no clue that they were physically present in Germany; I thought all their servers were out in San Francisco. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ancillary copyright

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN for Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne

--Spencer^T♦C 05:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

PC RfC

Hi. In this section you may want to change your asterisk to a pound sign so that your !vote will be numbered. Rivertorch (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sciatic nerve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resection (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) 14:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. "Somebody should do something with that".... Wnt (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Innocence of Muslims.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Innocence of Muslims.png. 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Just to say thanks for your edit to the Prem Rawat article. I have commented on the article Talk Page that I consider your edit an improvement but everyone else seems to have gone remarkably quiet... Anyway I wanted fresh people like you to comment as I am considered an opponent of Rawat by the editors there and attract considerable suspicion. Actually I'm not - I just oppose the one-sidedness of the article. Much obliged. PatW (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Momento has removed most of your edit [37]. Please can you tell me if it's appropriate to discuss this at the DR page. Apparently I can't comment 'prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments'. Could you do this please? PatW (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if it's appropriate to open another forum there for discussing this paragraph. I made the comment mostly to put up a diff so that I could show in practice what I wanted to implement in theory. One person commented at the article talk page that the paragraph I submitted didn't match the comment I made, so I think this was a useful way to clarify what I meant. I really don't want to get sucked into a bottomless pit of arguments over this paragraph - you're already seeking mediation and I thought it would help to launch a trial balloon and see which way it went. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CMB

HI. I've appreciated your responses on this topic, but these have been difficult for me to understand. I'm thinking that perhaps my confusion stems from argument(s) I've heard that "physics is local" which might mean limiting inertial reference frames to specific and very localized lattices? I ask because I do think of these frames as extending uniformly to infinity, and I cannot think of a proper reference frame lattice varying over distances in any significant way. Another possible source of confusion (I don't know if this is the case, but as I said I'm at a lost to understand your reply) is perhaps you are thinking Hubble's law isn't uniform when AFAIK is supposed to involve a spatially uniform expansion (observers in different parts of the observable universe should be currently observing basically the same distant red shifts and law). Modocc (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that, when you talk about whether there could be exceptions to relativity, the first thing people are going to point out is that while most matter is going at less than 0.01 c around here, when you look at distant galaxies they're flying away from us at great speed. Of course, from their perspective, matter is also moving at close to a single frame of reference - one different from ours. And the cosmic microwave background is also pretty close to symmetrical around them. So if there is an "absolute frame of reference", it must be one which is different between here and there. But I think you could have one which varies from place to place, but is nonetheless somehow special - e.g. if nothing is able to move backward in time relative to that frame, given some unknown physics of FTL travel. (Usually all this stuff boils down to explaining why you have warp drive but not time travel in some sci-fi you are or should be writing, which is why I mention it) Wnt (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we are in an expansion, we are not at rest with respect to each other! I should have realized this is what you meant, and you are correct in observing this, thus I was being dense, thus let me, if you will, sort this out and tidy things up. :-) With my postulated classical absolute inertial frame, every composite object has the exact same absolute rest state, whether it be a galaxy, a planet or an atom. The CMB may not coincide with this frame and any distinction would indicate our place with respect to its sources (but not the universe which could be infinitely larger). But since it does seem unlikely that we should be near the center of the redshifts we can observe, acceptance of my work seems to hinge on whether or not there turns out to be another explanation for these. But since I'm attempting to construct an alternative model, I must have alternative explanations for other things too (with many of the most important of these I already seem to have at hand, such as conceptually and mathematically understanding, very simply, why the speed of all processes such as clocks are velocity dependent, why is it we measure relative Doppler shifts, why does the vacuum light speed appear invariant in all our experiments, why we observe a transverse Doppler, why mass and energy are equivalent, why is mass-energy velocity dependent, etc). Therefore, its my current view that gravitons are particles that are responsible not only for gravity and gravitational redshifts, but for a substantial background effect that reddens light that travels great distances. I can always be wrong of course, and I don't have the details worked out enough to make any predictions on this front, but my model has been getting progressively better. Modocc (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hate to dash your hopes, but it doesn't sound like you're all that close to publication. I rather do wish I knew if someone with access to years of results from one of the big supercolliders had looked at some class of basic particle decay that occurs at the right speeds so that, when proceeding in certain directiosn, at certain times of day and year, it is at "true rest" relative to the CMB (with some room for calibration!) in order to see whether there is any special frame where physics starts to work... strangely. (I would also wonder if there could be some angle from the sun where some of the exiting particles might be hot/fast enough to reach a hypothetical absolute rest frame, again with the question of whether some unexpected effect could occur, or whether there would be certain stars at rest relative to the absolute frame that would show strange spectra, etc. It is all very unlikely, and yet... no one expected relativity until it was thrust upon them) Wnt (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Stranger physics... nooooooo more of that, thanks, I've had my fill ;-) In early grade school, I remember being bombarded with movies about relativity, thus the lesson starts fairly early on. Of course, I've studied the basics, such as how general relativity associates Newton's inverse law with spatial curvature, and how the electric and magnetic field strengths swap with each other depending on the reference frame. My model can handle these with ease, but its framework is far simpler, thus I don't expect to ever have to resort to Lorentz boosts, time reversals and compact dimensions!-Modocc (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Morel hunting

If you're interested in the Morel hunting tips, drop me a line (I also have never seen one in the wild, but can pass on what I was told). SemanticMantis (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

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.

Tumor promotion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Clonal

Zebularine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NCBI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya`fūr

Apologies for the forwardness, but I noticed the difficulties you were encountering with your DYK nomination of Ya`fūr. I've rewritten the article - I'd be interested to know what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed them myself - I see now that two admirers really took to stripping out anything at all about Innocence of Muslims just before you arrived. I don't even quite understand why so many people are hostile to the idea that we could understand that that film had a basis, that that basis was problematic, and that there could be some meeting of the minds on the issue once the parameters were understood. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The nomination appears to have stalled. Can you please reply to the latest query on hook wording? I'm hoping we can get this concluded soon and onto the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

War on common sense

I liked your comment here. It also jibes with the last paragraph of Hans Adlers comment here:

I am not willing to adapt to the puritan standards of behaviour that are apparently required for participating here. I think I have never encountered such standards in real life, and I am only familiar with them from reports about American society and what I have seen on this project.

Wish this would be discussed as the underlying issue to many of the English Wikipedia's problems. en.Wikipedia in general is too much like the USA imho. --213.196.195.236 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again with the OR at Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs

As I said with regards to your original research, put up or shut up [38]; provide evidence for your assertions. Astrology has been scientifically tested and has always come up short. If you are going to say otherwise, then the onus is on you to back it up rather than making spurious statements. Then demonstrate how that corresponds to what astrologers actually believe, rather than your guess work of what they believe. Astrologers believe that the apparent positions of all the planets in the sky indicates what will happen. It's not just the time of year. Some astrologers follow systems where the signs change with the calender, some don't. You aren't describing Astrology here, you are inserting your own made up "explanations" and saying that's what astrology is like, and saying therefore we can't say it's not true. Do the research. What you believe does not correspond to what astrologers believe at the most basic level. And if you do, make sure it has some actual relevance to what people are talking about. My knowledge isn't perfect but it's a lot closer to an actual description. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am refuting the polemical claim that any change in humans depending on the time of year when they are born is impossible. I was not providing an answer or claiming that I had factual evidence, only trying to see the issue evaluated in terms of science and not knee-jerk reaction. However, looking it up, I'm finding [39] The researcher cited, Richard Wiseman, is actually a Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow, so I'm not saying that this is an ironclad source either (so far I haven't tracked down the original study, nor did I even find one I remember that lifespan is longer for fall births). Nonetheless it is a factual claim, and factual claims can be evaluated by science, and it is a rational explanation, not a statement of religious belief. You are being "hypercorrect" and rejecting the idea of astrology religiously, not citing some source that shows that infants are identical. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Who made that claim that "any change in humans depending on the time of year when they are born is impossible"? and what is it's relevant to whether astrology is correct or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That is all I was saying at the Refdesk. There could be, in a specific population, a relationship between some time of the year (whether expressed as months or zodiac signs) and a specific phenotype, including personality traits, if a certain food were consumed (or not consumed) only during that time of year. Doesn't mean I "believe in astrology" - only that if I opened an ancient book of astrology and read that, say, Gemini brought the birth of sickly children, or shy and withdrawn children, or whatever, my first thought would be to do some ethnobotanical backtracking and see what might have been responsible. Not to burn the book. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Who suggested to go around burning books? This has nothing to do with the veracity or not of astrology. You are also asserting things about history when these are inconsistent with what we know of history. You haven't checked the basic history; you say things which aren't consistent with what the astrologers of the time were actually trying to predict, like the weather, politics and world affairs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've heard it said weather is correlated with the time of year. And as for politics and world affairs, well, March was named for a reason. Astrology (like many of the medical pseudosciences) is an example of how people use their reason to come up with a flawed, but potentially useful framework for evaluating hypotheses in the absence of a better idea. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

March was named after Mars, the god of war. I don't see the connection to what we are taking about. As I have already stated, astrologers are concerned with the apparent position of the planets in the sky. The same planets aren't in the same position every year ... You somehow seem to think astrology is just sun sign astrology IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Innocence of Muslims.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Innocence of Muslims.png. 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oxidative stress and immune system

Thank you very much. My problem is exactly that I need a general approach to the topic, while the majority of papers I met on-line (including those found using the external links you seggested) is very specific. For this reason I was looking for a treatise. If you are so kind to seggest me a book about the immune system that covers the subject, it will be great!

Many thanks.

193.205.224.196 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ya`fūr

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WPP plc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nielsen (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) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat topic ban

Thank you, Wnt, for sharing your observation concerning my topic-ban on the arbitration page! Let me add, that the edit in question was only made under exemplary conditions, uncontested, after previous discussion and unanimous agreement from all parties, including user:SylvieCyn and PatW as exponents of Rawat’s critics. Contrary to "battleground behavior"! As regards content, it may at first glance seem odd, as do many items in this BLP, but that is accounted for on the talk pages. It shows also, how above average experience and competence in the matter are very dearly desirable on this article, and that just being Wikipedia-street-wise can easily lead to fallacies. That is the reason why I joined in, even though English is not my first language. I am also completely independent, and there has never been a trace of COI.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I've added added a new article on wikiquote and used your suggestions on the William Luther Pierce article. Thanks alot for your help. Cheers. :) Sethane (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll probably still run into arguments with edits that large - there are still things people will object to in all that text, and unfortunately, few actually try to delete just the parts they find fault with. Personally I prefer a big article over a little one any day of the week. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. I's so frustrating when you've tried with the best intentions to improve wikipedia, end up witnessing it all reverted. A medium of such importance needs more editors like you. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Sethane (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communications Data Bill 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SSL (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) 17:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Communications Data Bill 2012

Hello! Your submission of Communications Data Bill 2012 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! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

I have asked for a topic or interaction ban here because of your constant misstatements and false accusations. Please feel free to join the discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was resolved in my favor. But during the couple of days it went on, you said Russavia and others were persecuting you, dismissed the Reference Desks as "troll magnets", started a new section to accuse Shrigley of personal attacks over a comment in favor, and accused a 16-year-old gay editor who happened to disagree with your criticism of Shrigley of being a "sock puppet" based on what, I can't fathom, leading to some kind of knee-jerk unjustified block from Coren and John Vandenberg then calling on his talk page for him to give up checkuser access, and the kid being coerced into giving personal information that he then had to have revdeled. Any commentary I could make on this would be superfluous. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By "resolved in your favour", I think you mean archived without action. I decided not to pursue it after I saw that it was simply causing more drama than it was worth. I have apologized to F&A for implying that they were a PaoloNapolitano/Flutterhsy sockpuppet without evidence. I stand by all of my other comments though, however people wish to view them. Let's resolve this amicably - you know how I feel about your comments, so if you absolutely must comment in a thread that I have started, read everything over until you are sure you understand what has been said, do not make assumptions, do not make accusations, and think twice before posting. I will do the same. Deal? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds like reasonable practice, and I don't think I've strayed from it often, but I know Wikipedia too well to actually promise anything, as doing so inevitably leads to further drama. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Communications Data Bill 2012

Hello! Your submission of Communications Data Bill 2012 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear

Once again, you seem to have misunderstood something that really isn't very hard to understand. On Jimbo's talk page, you say "I've nearly agreed with you, called for the community to be able to look into these issues as you want them to be able to...". That is not at all what I want. I am asking you, again, to stop making statements that state or imply my position, since you seem to be unable to understand anything I say and I do not wish to be associated with your routine misinterpretations. Do you remember what we agreed? I made no comment on your ridiculous DYK thread, yet you could not stop yourself from commenting on a thread that I started, after it had already been hatted twice. Please try harder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You've posted two threads to a major Wikipedia talk forum, but you don't want the community to be able to read about what they say? Wnt (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you have proven my point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently we don't understand each other, either here or above. I never promised to avoid commenting on threads you bring up, especially when they concern important matters of policy. Nor do I feel that I "accused" you of anything in what I said. What you were doing in this recent case was important, and the outcome of this commentary was that at least Wikipedia is applying some policy about this issue, rather than seeming completely paralyzed, even if that includes threats to block you for public discussion of a case. (I apologize for my own intentionally vague phrasing here for this reason) I would prefer a different policy, one where the community is free to openly discuss all particulars of a case and make its own policy decisions. In some cases that is difficult and takes a lot of thinking that I feel should be open to ideas from all sources. But it is important for Wikipedia to actually follow some policy to do something, even if it's one I disagree with. I still have not decided either way what I think of the particular case you have described. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Communications Data Bill 2012

Hi there Wnt, you may want to revisit this page if you want the DYK to go through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been another two weeks. The article hasn't been touched since early December. Please check in to let us know your plans. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The constructive engagement award

	The constructive engagement award
	Awarded for being right about Reagan's antics! (He did like to back his words with a very very big fleet though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(I still think Tarc is confused - though whether he's confused about me, Reagan, Nixon, all three, or something else, I'll let history decide.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

You have said that I can't be trusted with the real identities of members of Wiki Med. You have said that disclosing those details to me is disclosing them to WO. Redact it. It is false. I'm more than willing to discuss your concerns. But first redact it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that, but to be clear, I have now noted this explicitly. [40] Wnt (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what are your concerns about me? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that someone who has shown your lack of sympathy for Fae's situation should be selected to propose and administer a mandatory identification policy for a Wikipedia thematic organization. Note that the entire point, or concern, of the first paragraph is ultimately that Wikipediocracy members are successful and I expect them to make money and have a good career out of their activities. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a great deal of sympathy for Fae's position. I happen to think that he should have resigned his admin bit when it became clear that the RfA had been misled regarding the Ash RfC. I was totally unimpressed when he didn't. But I think the behaviour of a lot of people at his RfC, including you, was appalling. You and they kept going on and on about very personal, very irrelevant stuff, seemingly completely oblivious or uncaring about how that must have been impacting him. I sympathised with him (literally - in an email) when he was rejected by Jimbo. I didn't follow that incident so have no opinion on its merits but I knew it must have hurt his feelings deeply. [41][42][43]

I was one of the first people nominated for a free t-shirt, so that page was on my watchlist. That's how I saw Koh's nomination - I wasn't dispatched there from WO. [44]

I totally repudiate the implication in your post on Jimbo's page that I can't be trusted with the identities of Wiki Med members. Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purinosome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CK2 (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) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

File:The Vandal's Barnstar.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Vandal's Barnstar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tyrian shekel.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tyrian shekel.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is from a long time back ... Fair Use seems like the wrong thing. I'd say PD-old, apparently was leaning in that direction at the time, but if it isn't obvious it isn't cost-effective to argue it. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tyrian shekel.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Tyrian shekel.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that 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) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Could use your input

Having a discussion over here. could use your input. ScienceApe (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this is the article that is being redacted

http://www.vice.com/read/kody-maxson-amanda-todds-alleged-tormenter-has-reemerged-online ScienceApe (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this. There's obviously a whole subculture of kids doing stuff like this to each other, or claiming they did it to each other, and it's very hard to pick out truth from fiction. This is the most primary source I can possibly imagine, and I don't put much credit in its conclusions, but its conclusions are in any case not about that girl.

I don't know whether you have an emotional attachment to the case or not, but my feeling is that if you do, it is misplaced. Our anger should not be for some kid stupidly posting videos. Our anger should be for a Talibanesque society that stigmatizes women if they expose their breasts - even when they clearly do not intend this for publication. It should be for a society dominated by the wealthy, where labor is a surplus and all production comes from capital, quota, claims, "rights", machines, where people are nonetheless told they must work to have anything, and then the choice of who gets that privilege and who doesn't is made according to this and other stupid prejudices. These kids, all these kids, are dupes and victims, nothing more. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rizana Nafeeks' Image

Since 9 editors including 3 administrators(including Jimbo Wales) agreed that the image qualifies under fair use, I have added back the image to the page Execution of Rizana Nafeek. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed it. There is a revived discussion going on currently. Please let others know whether still you believe the Image has a Fair Use value?61.245.172.21 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For the Pluto link! I'll take a look. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way

Are you named after the signalling pathway? See the bottom of Education Program:Saint Louis University/Signal Transduction (SP13) if so. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

These courses are laid out very differently from the rest of Wikipedia. An enrollment token is required for students to take part, which I presume means that it requires payment. Now I won't claim to be "incorruptible", that I couldn't be recruited in some role if I felt that it would bring me money or at least some sort of career prospect out of it, but it seems against the spirit of Wikipedia for me to select an editor to receive my free assistance solely because he possessed a token establishing his status as a university student. I do take part in the WP:Reference desk/Science and these students, of course, are free to ask questions there. Wnt (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No payment. It's just a mechanism to ensure everyone can't edit the page, which I found curious and that subject has been addressed and archived at WP:ENB. I started WP:AFSE to try and explain things. I just thought if you had an academic interest in the pathway you could comment and converse with the student at Talk:Wnt signaling pathway or their talk page. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the course is open to people not enrolled at the University of St. Louis? Wnt (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The course is not open in that way, but I have access to the enrollment token despite not being enrolled at Saint Louis University. Biosthmors (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Governance Review

Wnt, you converted the Governance Review on Commons to .djvu format the other day (well done!). Could you do the same for the Descriptive Chronology? Thanks, Andreas JN466 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, for completeness I did this, though it is possible I will not approve of the use you'll put it to. Wnt (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't have to worry; I'm not contemplating any further use. But the thing should be available. Andreas JN466 00:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	for your remarkably patient response at the Reference Desk when accused of being responsible for a completely different editor's teasing of the original poster for making a spelling error --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, he must have just read what I said backwards. As he said, he isn't a native speaker, and I find that when reading things in languages I don't know well, I often get the meaning "almost" right - but 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Secondary/primary sources...

Hi Wnt We were both talking in the Talk pages of MEDRS, in the section on primary/secondary sources. I am a bit confused as to where you are coming from. You know that under the vanilla reliable sources guidelines there is a section on "no original research which is expanded with a subpage specifically discussing "no original research", which in turn has a section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which section makes it really clear that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." So I am a bit confused that you are upset about MEDRS and its parallel requirement for secondary sources. If you are writing about, say, the role of wnt in the cell biology of breast cancer, it doesn't really matter whether you work under plain old "reliable sources" or MEDRS - you will always be working out of the biomedical literature, and you should always work with reviews or textbooks, and using primary sources rarely and with great care - and temporarily until the field solidifies to the point where there are decent reviews on the subject that can replace the primary source. This is what you do, right?Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For whatever is not subject to MEDRS (which apparently is quite a range of interpretation) the option always exists to cite good primary sources when they come out. Primary sources are reliable sources, especially when they are found in high-quality journals; they merely need to be used with a bit of caution to avoid making claims that they don't actually support. I think that the optimal sourcing, when available, should cite a tertiary source like a textbook, a secondary source like a recent literature review, one or more key primary studies that established the conclusion, and a popular science article to explain it to those with less technical familiarity with the subject. I do not agree that primary sources should be "temporary". The first thing you learn when seriously studying biology is that there's no substitute for going back to the original article and actually looking at the evidence for yourself. When you start playing a game of telephone with the conclusions, you can start believing all sorts of odd things. There is no doubt in my mind that physics or astronomy articles are better off because people can cite popular magazines and primary papers from ArXiv, even though yes, they not infrequently contain claims that I don't know if they're for real or not. (Just was looking at such an instance in Andromeda-Milky Way collision, for curiosity and comparison...) Wnt (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I mis-framed my question. First, let me say that I hear what you say above - you think content should be optimally sourced by all three (3rd, 2nd, 1st) plus a popular press article, and you think primary sources are fine for permanent sourcing. What I would like to know, is if you understand what current Wikipedia policies and guidelines are -- that what you are proposing is a change from what policy for all wikipedia content (including medical) actually is now. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

as an aside, I work in biotech so you don't need to tell me about the importance of going back to the primary sources. Also, I don't know you are aware of the two scientific articles that have come out, in which scientists at companies show the results of their efforts to replicate findings in papers (many of them in the best journals) that reveal a potentially interesting new target for drug discovery. I think each article showed results from trying to replicate about 100 papers. They did this because if the targets were real, the company would consider starting to invest real money in working on them -- it is not just reputation or getting the next grant for a lab that is on the line with respect to truth or falseness of the findings-- millions of dollars and years of work will be invested if the company decides the results are real - money and time that the company is accountable for, to its shareholders. One paper was from team for Bayer and the other was from Amgen, I think. In both papers, they could only replicate something like 20% of the findings. Terrible! There have been rumors about this for many years but these two papers are the first publications on it. If you haven't seen these papers I would be happy to shoot you the refs. Anyway this has made me think differently about the truth-value of primary papers in the biomedical field, even in high quality journals. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've located this [45][46][47][48]. Of course this is highly disturbing and points to a variety of widespread problems, not the least of which is too much emphasis on trying to fund "the best" people, rather than just paying lower salaries and hiring more people to do more careful work without the constant battle for grant money through sensationalism. I think too many funders spend their efforts wandering around with dowsing rods pretending they can tell where the lightning is going to strike, and the pretense that research is a field of only professors and students doesn't match the reality of the data mines.

For what it is worth, I don't think it is so much about who gets funded, as the standards for what is publishable are too low and somewhat wrong. The somewhat wrong part: there should be a place for labs to publish negative results, and also simple replication of others' findings. The too low part: and for new findings, there should be a requirement for much bigger Ns. The small Ns is the biggest problem, IMO. (that, and the fact that scientists cherry pick what experiments "count" - the data from specific experiments that yielded negative results for the hypothesis are thrown out due to "experimental error" (which does happen) and only the positive data (from the experiments that "worked") get shown -- this is trickiest part by far, and why I think so many findings fail to replicate. I don't think there is any way to fix that, since experimental error does occur. But bigger Ns for publishing would help. Of course the way that grant funding cycles work, it is not neccesarily practical to require bigger Ns... the whole system is kind of broken.Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, let's put this back in context. A hundred millennia of people suffer a disease without hope of cure, and today we don't know which one of four drugs is really useful to cure it. Boo hoo. So science is being done badly, wastefully - it's being done. And if we in a Wikipedia article can say "one of these four drugs may well be about to change the lives of people with this disease", then by all means, without a moment's hesitation, we should put every last one of them in the article! Wnt (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my question? Let me rephrase it. Do you think that the way you argue sourcing should be done complies with policy on reliable sourcing WP:PSTS and the WP:MEDRS guideline, or are you arguing that the policy and guideline should be changed? This is an important question to me, and I do hope you answer. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside of "MEDRS", I don't often see problems with sourcing scientific information. The general policies don't prohibit citing reliable primary sources. They encourage using secondary sources, and I don't have any complaint about using secondary sources also, or using secondary sources even in preference to the primary when there isn't anything particularly important said only by the primary source. (It depends on the field how important it is for readers to see the original primary data - usually though I don't see fundamentalists telling people that, say, they can't link to or include a map of cosmic background radiation because it's a primary result from the satellite, not a review about it) Wnt (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I was reading your interchanges on the MEDRS talk page and it became clear to me that people were getting frustrated with you, and that you were getting frustrated too, because you seem to be unaware what WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS actually say. When you write something like what you just did: "I don't have any complaint about using secondary sources also, or using secondary sources even in preference to the primary when there isn't anything particularly important said only by the primary source" -- this flies in the face of what WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS actually say. I don't think you know what they actually say, and what is more problematic -- you don't seem to know that you don't know. Which is fine, but when you participate in a discussion on the Talk page for the policy, it is recipe for unhappiness for everybody.Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not deny that I disagree with MEDRS, especially when it is interpreted to anything potentially affecting medicine in the future; that was the point of the debate. But PSTS does not deny that you can write what the primary sources say. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

but your statement, "I don't have any complaint about using secondary sources also, or using secondary sources even in preference to the primary when there isn't anything particularly important said only by the primary source" flies in the face of WP:PSTS itself (not just MEDRS), right? Maybe you wrote that casually but it is the kind of thing you wrote many times on the Talk page. PSTS is super clear that secondary sources are the go-to sources, and you can use primary only as sources for factual statements with no interpretation whatsover (PTSD says this with several bolded do not statements).... right? Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be saying something said only by the primary source can't be a factual statement. Wnt (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, and I don't think you are trying to communicate. All I can say is that I recommend that you read WP:PSTS and that you keep it in mind when you edit and talk about policy. Have a great day.Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate documentation (template:Plotter)

Hey :-) Just saw your template:plotter, and your summary. Documentation is made with <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>. After saving, a "create documentation" button appears on the page... Christian75 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it was certainly something I should have known (and have done before) but it was late and I didn't want to work it out again. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lua requests

Hi Wnt, I noticed you've contributed Lua scripts at Module:Plotter and Module:RDIndex. I just created a request page for Lua scripts at Wikipedia:Lua requests and it'd be great if you could watchlist it to assist anyone who needs help with Lua scripts. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really quite ignorant about Lua, having heard of it only when the Scribunto plan was announced, but if I happen to think up anything useful I'll see what I can do. Odds when I comment I'll only think I thought up something useful... :) Wnt (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Module:RDindex

I fixed this up for you. The script error you were seeing is actually probably a problem in the string module when interpreting UTF8 strings. Using mw.ustring seemed to fix it, though I think I will try to report it later. Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Topsy (social media)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Topsy (social media) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References for Topsy

Crunchbase isn't considered a reliable independent source, just as LinkedIn and AboutUs aren't. The NYT 'article' is a blog, and the Twitter report is a couple of mentions. Something a bit better would make me remove the tag - as it is, I didn't delete but left the tag in place. Peridon (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't take it to be a "blog" in the sense you mean. If you go to the front page http:www.nytimes.com - click TECHNOLOGY in the bolded menu on the left just below the masthead - the next page displays "Gadgetwise>>" over three current articles in this "blog". To all appearances it is an integral part of the newspaper. Techcrunch was considered at [49] [50] and the balance of opinion sounds at least mildly positive. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note on Jimbo's page and was about to start editing, but realized they may be competitors for Viralheat, where I have a COI. But here are some sources I had found so far:

• Geron, Tomio (October 11, 2011). "Topsy Adds Google Plus to Real Time Search Index". Forbes. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
• Womack, Brian (January 24, 2013). "SocialMedia Predicting Stock Moves Spawn Sentiment". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
• Hoge, Patrick (March 10, 2011). "Topsy Gets $15M for "Realtime" search". Retrieved March 10, 2013.

CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at the Doncram arbitration case

Obviously you haven't been around for the last four years of arguing in the Doncram case, where he's been uploading thin stubs and where a number of people have tried to get him to stop. But, since you're coming in at the end and making some observations, and since you appear to be allied with Doncram, maybe you can tell me a few things:

1. What year was the Floyd B. Olson House built? The books and references I consulted said it was built in 1922, but Doncram told me it was likely built earlier. So when was it built?

2. Do you agree with Doncram that I'm too stupid to know the difference between an architect and a builder, or that I'm too stupid to know when a building was built?

3. Do you agree with Doncram that my edits to Wikipedia are basically worthless and that I'm wasting my time here?

4. How is the Open Directory Project even remotely related to NRHP stubs?

I'd like to know what you think, since you appear to have an expert view on the case now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have a hard time following [51]. It looks like you say the database says 1922, and doncram is using only 1922, so if you're saying 1922 is right, what's the dispute?

2. In his evidence you say he said your code didn't know the difference, which is a very different thing, isn't it?

3. To be clear, I don't approve of all this nastiness. But you're advocating him to be banned, which is saying his edits are worthless, right? What bothers me is that a fairly symmetric nastiness is leading to one person being banned.

4. The project offers historical resources. I am merely suspicious. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer question 3 properly. I asked if YOU think MY edits are worthless, and if I'M wasting MY time here. Actually, reading between the lines in your answer, I think you'd like to see me banned from the project entirely, so maybe I don't need your answer at this point. Oh, and if you had read the arbitration decision, you'd notice that the proposal to ban Doncram has failed. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right that the failure of this is more clear at this point than I'd thought. Since you weren't in the line for sanctions, I wasn't speaking of you at all. What I want to see is Wikipedia find a way to bring peace to long-standing conflicts like this, and the number one requirement for peace is to reject deletionism and let editors work side by side building, rather than tearing down each others' work. Wnt (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Topsy

Hi Wnt, I saw your comments about Topsy (social media) on Jimbo's talk page. It looks like it may be notable and there are definitely sources out there on it. If you like I'll userfy the article so you can work on it further. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unit tests

I wasn't quite clear from your post on Wikipedia:Lua requests if you had seen Wikipedia:Lua#Unit testing, so just in case you haven't, there's a little bit of discussion there. Testing is almost never going to be completely comprehensive, but something is better than nothing, and you can just throw all the individual tests you try out onto one page, and use Module:UnitTests to automatically check if they still work. (It can be used for any template, really.) So it's a nice way to keep checking, as you revise your template or module, that everything still works as before. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I suppose I hazily see the point, now that I realize the idea is to have a separate module already written to compare the output, running them all from a template. It doesn't match my intuition because it seems like whenever I get any output but "script error" the trouble is already over with, but perhaps for more sophisticated scripts it is not so easy. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're can get everything working the first time, and there's no need to ever change the template or module in future, count yourself among the fortunate ;-). Often, though, a template/module gets implemented one bit of functionality at a time (first get something basic working, then add support for a new parameter, etc.), either during its initial development, or later on when someone wants to extend it. With modules, you may decide you want to restructure the code to improve its flexibility, efficiency, reusability, and so forth. In these situations, it's great to have a set of test examples ready to go, or to be able to just add more test cases as you incrementally add more capabilities, available on a subpage of the template/module. Having some infrastructure that automatically checks the output so you don't have to do it manually is a nice timesaver and isn't prone to missing changes that are difficult to see but can still affect the results when they, say, get picked up by another template for further processing. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Convert number

Hi Wnt, I saw this diff, and was wondering if it doesn't make more sense to just local chaff=mw.ustring.match(text,"(%D*)$"), so you don't have to check separately for coming out as failure and emitting an empty string. I'm a complete Lua noob, so this is really a question, not some sort of smartassery on my side. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just slapped in a quick fix when I found a script error. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

String?

Isn't this:

{{#invoke:FindAndReplace|main|find|replace|This function will find things...}}

Just the same as:

{{#invoke:String|replace|This function will find things...|find|replace}}

This function will replace things...

Or without the extra space, which leads to preformatting, if you prefer:

{{#invoke:String|replace|This function will find things...|find|replace}}

This function will replace things...

Dragons flight (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. The thing is, originally I thought I needed a different function to find-and-replace on a whole page using mw.title.new. But I since realized that I can use a separate Module:Page to get this data, so this one is admittedly looking purposeless by this point. (You jumped ahead, but yeah, this is one of the reasons I was taking inventory...)

Though I still don't understand why I'm getting templates substituted with [[:Template:]] and losing their parameters, or if there's any way to avoid that. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

KLove (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: it looks like my present free email provider is now badly compromised and unavailable, sorry. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(I've since configured a new address) Wnt (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for noticing my work on George E. Goodfellow. And thanks for sticking on WP despite all the raving lunatics sometimes disguised as admins. WP need more editors like you. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you so much for building Module:TrainingPages! I really, really appreciate it. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Module:NewestAtTop

Hi and thank you for Module:NewestAtTop. I just noticed it. I see it is adding numbers to headings for some reason. Any idea what is causing that? --Rogerhc (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It was just a debug feature - this was written during a discussion on WP:Lua requests and I was just showing it could be done at the time. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Module:Chart vs. Module:Plotter

Hi.

I've written to you a long and complex message some time ago, but it got wiped out by unplanned reboot or something similar, and i was too lazy to write the whole thing again, but i think i should.

i think i mentioned style in the past, and i won't harp on it again. however, i would suggest you peek into the pie-chart function in Module:Chart and compare it to your own.

i think my code is clearer and more readable, and more importantly, more understandable. basically what i do is i calculate, per each slice, at which quadrant it begins, and at which quadrant it ends, and for each slice i loop over the quadrants it resides in, and i draw the part of the slice contained in this quadrant exactly once (this is the "drawSlice()" function. note that it only cares about quadrant and start - it does not care about the end of the slice, because the next slice will start at this angle and hide it). if the slice starts at or before the point the quadrant starts, i just use "background-color". if the slice starts inside the quadrant, i use the mitered border trick. the code ends up pretty readable and elegant, if i say so myself.

i also create an imagemap poly for _each slice_, (this is in "createSlices()", which also calls the previous function once per each slice per each quadrant) regardless of whether there is "link" defined for it. if there is no link, i use [[#noSuchAnchor|Slice legend]], so there is a useful tooltip for every slice, regardless whether it's a real link or not (if you use "#" instead of "#noSuchAnchor", i think some or all browsers will jump to top of page on click).

my original intention was to more or less appropriate your code, but i found it hard to understand.

one little neat trick i found is with "position:absolute": the location is always (radius, radius), however for Q1 i use "left:radius" and "bottom:radius", for q2 i use right and bottom, for q3 it's right and top, and for q4 it's left and top. it took me a while to get there - but once i did i am pretty happy.

one thing i found that did not work as i thought it would - even though i did use the "#tag:" notation, it did not really help, and i still have to call frame:preprocess() just like you do. oh well...

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made some improvements there - bear in mind that when I first started with the Template:Pie chart, I had absolutely no idea how it worked. I rewrote it once just to get it to be somewhat traceable, added the features I wanted, and was satisfied ... but the way of doing things was based largely on the history of it.

That said, there are some things you've been doing better in programming - aspects of Lua subroutines I still need to learn - notably, I've been nervous to mess with variables in a subroutine because I'm not quite sure when they're in scope and when they're not. I was under the impression from much earlier tests while I was learning that a local variable res wouldn't be available from AddRes. The result is that I've been passing things solely as parameters and returns, which makes for a straightforward but occasionally contorted way of doing things. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

the intention of my message was not as "mine is bigger than yours" kind of thing, and i'm sorry if it made this impression. the idea is to discuss different points in order for everyone to learn and progress - just like i learned from you about the need to use frame:preprocess() - if you haven't told me that, god knows how much time i would waste finding it out, and i might have just given up...

regarding scope: lua is pretty similar to javascript (and the mirror image of php, for that matter): an undeclared variable is assumed to be global, and a functional variable is recognized in the internal functions, unless they override it by defining their own "local" with same name. variables are passed "by value" (i.e., if you pass a variable to a function who expect "i", and you modify "i" inside the function, it has no effect on the variable you passed to it), but "tables" are a special case: if you pass a table to a function, and in the function you add or remove values from the table, you are actually modify the original table (however, if you assign a new value to the variable inside the function, the assignment cause them to be "disjoined") maybe a short example is in order:

function demo( tab ) -- assume we pass a table to this function
    table.insert( tab, 12 ) -- modify the original table
    tab['abba'] = nil -- ditto
    tab = { 4, 5, 6, 7 } --[[ create a whole new table and assign it to local variable "tab".
       from this point on, you can't access the original table that was
       passed as parameter to this function, and was somewhat modified in first 2 lines
       ]]
end

local x = { abba = 'great group', 1, 2 }
demo( x )
-- now x is { 1, 2, 12 }: it lost 'abba', and gained a new ordered member

as to the question of "what makes good code": IMO, the answer is first and foremost good and expressive names for functions and variables, even local ones.

"i" and "j" are fine as short-lived loop variables, and in my module i use "w1,w2,w3,w4" to store border width, but in general, when you have a line that looks like so: local output,lr,lrv,tv,bw1,bw2,bw3,bw4,bd,lrB,bw2B, it is hard for anyone else to get into this code. i can grok "bw1..bw4" as "border width" (and "output" _is_ a good name), but what are lr, lrv, bd, lrbl bw2B? i dare to guess that even if you yourself will want to revisit this code in 6 or 18 months, you'll have some difficulties, and i do believe that i will find it significantly easier to revisit "my" code, not to mention that it will be easier for someone else to get the hang of it and add improvements.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston marathon

I just wanted to note that you're one of the few experienced editors (there are a few other but your name keeps coming up) that are making point-on policy arguments about the various arguments on that talk page. I'm surprised at the pushback to the inclusion of basic front-page news facts by the same editors over and over, many of whom I have worked near, if not with before. I feel like I missed some big memo that went out on our treatment of current-event topics, because editing past breaking-news articles did not go like this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's been pretty pathological for some time now. It is hard to come up with a believable explanation for why some editors are so hostile to a straightforward coverage of the facts. By this point, I would usually say, you have the right to spend your time doing something more productive instead, producing something copyrighted for which you'll get paid, or at least acknowledged, or at least, not have your work immediately thrown away provided you give it to some corporation until the stars fall from the sky, so it will be valued. I just decided to ...(honestly, waste my time)... look over the talk page and argue this one because I'm infuriated by the terrorist(s) (partly for blowing people's legs off, mostly for providing an excuse for conservatives in America to waste more money it doesn't have on security precautions against events less likely than being struck by lightning). I am not particularly hopeful about it. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that some media outlet will notice this (and perhaps the naming) debate on the talk page, and with a few days hindsight, write a scathing article about how backwards wikipedia policies are, echoing all of the things we've been saying the last 12 hours, missing of course that if we followed policies (I'm less pessimistic than you about our past current even topics) as we had in the past, we wouldn't have this issue. Prudence is one thing, but this is something else. Shadowjams (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Script errors with Module:TrainingPages

If you have a chance, could you take a look the script error I noted at Module talk:TrainingPages? Thanks again for building that module. It's been extremely useful to me and I think it'll be ported to other languages as well along with the training templates.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! As noted on the talk page, I made a fix, but it could use a check to make sure I didn't break anything else.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Reader survey

Hi. I have removed the "Suggest a question" option for the time being, thinking it may be a waste of everybody's time if there is no support for the survey. I'll restore it if the community decides to go with the survey. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange bar script no longer cookie-dependent

Hey, Wnt, just wanted to let you know that I made a major update to the OBoD script; it no longer relies on cookies. You mentioned that was a concern for you, so if you're still interested, give it a shot and let me know if it starts working for you. It's still at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Abortion articles

As you probably already know, abortion-related articles are subject to general sanctions, including 1RR. You haven't violated it, and your editing has been totally fine. I'm not accusing you of edit-warring or anything improper - all I see so far is a standard WP:BRD approach - but I just want to make sure you're aware of that restriction. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon and possible sabotaging of Wikipedia

Hi, Wnt. In the earlier section on the Boston Marathon, you wrote: "It is hard to come up with a believable explanation for why some editors are so hostile to a straightforward coverage of the facts." Were you saying that ironically? Because a simple explanation (and a believable one, at least to me) would be that Wikipedia is a relatively trustworthy news outlet, and therefore a threat to the profitability of other news outlets, who therefore have a financial interest in sabotaging Wikipedia's reporting of news stories in general, and big news stories in particular. Such sabotage is fairly easy to achieve by putting an editor or two of yours to work on the Wikipedia article, and anybody who expresses any suspicions about your editor can then be barred for violating rules such as WP:AGF, etc... But I can't be sure that's the case because your contributions to the Boston Marathon Bombings articles are now hidden away in one or more of many archives, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. But I'd appreciate if you could let me know whether you think my speculation makes any sense in the light of your experience.

Also, would you happen to know whether reducing the number of internal links within Wikipedia (on the theory that there is some terrible scourge called overlinking which needs to be combatted regardless of how irritating reducing links can be to readers) can lower the linked-to article's ranking in search engines, which might be another way of sabotaging Wikipedia? Even if it doesn't affect the search engine ranking, getting readers irritated when reading Wikipedia articles is presumably useful if somebody wants to sabotage Wikipedia. I note there was a recent attempt to further outlaw 'overlinking' by inserting a new rule banning multiple links from areas where they were previously allowed, such as tables, with no attempt to achieve consensus for the change despite the ruling that that page should not be changed without consensus (this eventually allowed other editors to revert the change). Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your idea about the Boston Marathon had crossed my mind, but it rarely works out for the best to accuse a group of unknown editors as being part of some massive conspiracy based solely on it being the first idea that comes to mind. Just because I have trouble imagining another explanation doesn't mean that there isn't one. Failure to recognize the limits of our imagination is absolutely central in the origins of most unpleasantness on Wikipedia (more commonly when an editor derides well-researched content as 'cruft' and deletes it because he can't imagine a use for it). In a sense it is irrelevant - what we need are better principles, like that we should not have to pause and figure out whether it is ethical to disseminate a wanted poster from the FBI. We just have many too many 'ethics'; the ethics we need is that we're here to share reliably sourced data. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note: as this is rather long, please feel free not to read it if you feel you don't have the time)

I don't agree that 'it is irrelevant'. We either do or do not think we have 'adequate' (whatever that means) evidence (NOT proof) of Wikipedia being damaged by commercial vested interests yet again for the zillionth time (for instance, via the spamming links that you complain about), but in this case in an apparently new way (at least judging by Shadowjams' comment that this particular kind of problem did not occur in the past). What should be done about it depends on the answer to the 'either/or' in the previous sentence. But what should be done would NOT involve you or me specifically accusing any specific editors of anything, let alone being part of a 'massive conspiracy'. To take the 'massive conspiracy' bit first - even if the plan really was to sabotage Wikipedia in the way I described, this need not involve anything 'massive', nor would it legally be a conspiracy (and perhaps not morally either) since they wouldn't be planning to do anything illegal. At worst it would be something mildly immoral and/or mildly unethical, and even that could be disputed on the basis that they are arguably morally entitled to do that sort of thing to defend their ability to earn a living, and/or to protect the job security of their employees, etc. Indeed some might even argue that it would be an immoral dereliction of their duty to their shareholders and /or to their stakeholders (such as their employees, and the dependants of those employees) to fail to try to sabotage Wikipedia in this way. As for making specific accusations without proof against specific editors, this would arguably be pointless and immoral and stupid and conterproductive, etc.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be right to simply do nothing either (arguably that could be a dereliction of whatever moral duty we as Wikipedians may (or may not) have to Wikipedia's millions of stakeholders), at least assuming we do think we have 'adequate' evidence (not proof) that such sabotage was going on.Assuming we did think we had such 'adequate' evidence, I expect the right thing to do would be to bring this possible (but unproven and hard-to-prove) problem to the attention of the 'appropriate authorities' in Wikipedia and let them decide what, if anything, they should do about it. I think that leaves only the following questions:

1) Do we think we have such 'adequate' evidence? (You and/or Shadowjams can answer that a lot better than I can, so I'll be letting Shadowjams know about this discussion)

2) If the answer to (1) is yes, then what are the 'appropriate authorities' in this case? (Presumably either Jimbo Wales, and/or some admin(s), and/or some committee(s), and/or some discussion forum(s)).

3) If the answer to (1) is yes and the 'appropriate authorities' have been identified, then who writes the post(s) to bring the matter to their attention? (Presumably you and/or Shadowjams and/or me). At least that's how I see the matter, though I could of course be completely wrong. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that there are severe problems with overlinking, but I don't know what tables have to do with it. The main problem is that we don't have anybody doing anything to upgrade the category system to make it pretty, flexible, usable; and so everyone is making massive navboxes with a hundred links spammed to each of a hundred articles; but as a result you go and web search any two terms vaguely related to something like a movie or software franchise, and every single article out of those hundred will come up as a result, with no easy way to get at the intersection of terms in the text rather than in the navbox. That may be SEO, and it may be designed to pump up these commercial products, but mostly, we're stealing the SEO from ourselves and seriously annoying people. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note: as this is rather long, please feel free not to read it if you feel you don't have the time)

Perhaps you should bring that to the attention of 'appropriate authorities' (whoever they might be) in Wikipedia, if you have not already done so. But I was talking about a very different kind of alleged overlinking, and my apologies, as I should perhaps have spelt that out more clearly. Take a seemingly non-commercial example. If we have an article on Relativity, and Galileo appears in it twice, and Einstein appears in it 50 times, our current rules against 'overlinking' say we should normally link to Einstein at most twice, and possibly just once. I have already pointed out to Jimbo Wales that this discriminates against those with poor eyesight who will find it harder than the rest of us to spot the one or two links to Einstein. I also decided to mention this might conceivably get Wikipedia sued for discrimination against the disabled. In fact I neither knew nor much cared whether it actually could get Wikipedia sued or not, as I mostly said it on the basis that, rightly or wrongly, I tend to suspect that mentioning it just might make the powers that be a bit more likely to pay attention :)

But what I actually care rather more about is that this rule can irritate millions of readers of Wikipedia (with or without poor eyesight) zillions of times, by unnecessarily wasting their time on looking for links or having to unnecessarily type 'Einstein' into a Search or Find box. As I know from painful experience, it can also irritate or seriously annoy editors who find themselves in unnecessary and deeply confusing disputes as a result. And I can't see any benefits from this rule that might justify all that annoyance. And, (though I don't know whether the following last two speculations are ever significant problems in practice), it might also result in no links to the Einstein article, after the section with the single link gets edited or transfered to a sub-article, etc, and in some cases I can half-imagine it somehow causing search engines to treat Galileo as being as important to Relativity as Einstein is.

Because the rule's page can only be changed by consensus, I see no possibility of changing it by going through 'normal channels' (as distinct from by convincing people like Jimbo Wales that it harms Wikipedia, which I honestly think it does). I remain amazed that a consensus was ever reached on imposing such a rule, though it would not surprise me if it was cleverly sneaked in without consensus (just like the recent (unsuccessful) attempt to extend the rule to areas like tables (where it currently doesn't apply) appears to have been an attempt to sneak in a change without consensus).

To somebody who is a servant of some enemy of Wikipedia, such as a commercial encyclopedia, the damage done to Wikipedia by the increased irritation and annoyance probably fully justifies creating and/or defending the rule. But having come across SEO via your User page (which I visited following your comments on my post to Jimbo Wales), and having come across what looked like possible evidence of commercial sabotage of our reporting of the Boston Marathon Bombing here on your Talk page, it occured to me that causing annoyance might not be the only benefit of the rule for those wishing to harm Wikipedia. Depending on precisely how search engines work, particularly Google, it occurred to me that the rule might tend to reduce the ranking Google would give (in the above example) to Wikipedia's Einstein article by getting rid of anything up to 49 links to that article (Google ranks articles according to the number of links to them). In this case the beneficiaries would be commercial encyclopedias whose Einstein article might rise above Wikipedia's. In other cases the beneficiaries could be any other kind of commercial publication for whom Wikpedia is a dangerous rival.

But I don't know whether removing these 49 links actually affects the ranking at all, because Google might conceivably only count one Einstein link per page (perhaps as some sort of anti-spam measure), or Google might not even see our internal links as links at all (because they don't include 'http://'). As your user page seems to say that you've been carrying out various experiments with links while researching SEO, I thought you might perhaps be able to tell me whether removing those 49 links would disimprove the Einstein article's Google ranking or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The last time I fooled around with links it didn't have an obvious effect right away, but I can't claim to have investigated it very well. I am not an expert in Googleology (and I know there are many people out there who are) but my guess is that somebody in their company actually sees reports of what fraction of their search results lead to Wikipedia and would be in a position to compensate for changes that result from https, overlinking, etc. I think it would be far more plausible for someone linked with a company to find a way to "SEO" that company's article in particular. Wnt (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt. Actually I don't think that's what I'd be advising if I worked for a commercial Encyclopedia that saw Wikipedia as a dangerous competitor, but I think I've basically said that already so I guess there's not much point in repeating myself ad nauseam. Thanks again. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting because Tlhslobus linked me here, and I'd commented on the Jimbo thread referenced above. Tlhslobus raises a few points interesting points. First, I don't for a second think there's a conspiracy. I know many of the editors (through wikipedia) that were involved, and with whom I disagreed, and I don't for a minute think their motives are anything but honest, no matter if I disagree with their edits. You bring up the linking issue, and I think you're confounding external links with internal links, but nevertheless, I've been involved with the disambiguation project here, and one of the brilliant parts of our dab policy is that we restrict links (one per entry). I started to realize how many websites overlink, and that begins to seriously hamper navigation. Maybe not exactly the issue you were talking about, but you at least glance it.

I think you maybe have some misconceptions about some of the Wikipedia governance structure Tlhslobus. Jimbo's position can be nicely analogized to that of the Queen of England. He has sway, he has some legal and technical powers that (to my knowledge) have never been used in a monumental way, but other than that, he's just another admin. There are some serious problems with paid editing, something User:Orangemike has been vocal about, among others. But I don't think this is one of those situations. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Shadowjams. Just two things that I'm not too clear about, and provided you don't feel I'm wasting too much of your time, I'd appreciate it if you could offer me some clarification.

1) What exactly did you mean when you wrote "I think you're confounding external links with internal links". In particular, are you perhaps saying that Google ignores internal links (such as writing Einstein instead of Einstein in other Wikipedia articles) when ranking Wikipedia's Einstein article? And, if so, how confident are you about that, and do you by any chance happen to know of any reasonably reliable source for it? Or are you perhaps saying something completely different?

2) What exactly did you mean when you wrote "and that begins to seriously hamper navigation". In particular, are you perhaps saying that allowing Einstein instead of Einstein more than once (or sometimes twice) in a Wikipedia article eventually seriously slows down the system? And, if so, how confident are you about that, and do you by any chance happen to know of any reasonably reliable source for it? (Please note that this is the only kind of alleged overlinking to whose banning I have been objecting.) Or are you perhaps saying something completely different? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as you're arguing this here, I should just say that overlinking isn't an issue that seems very important to me. I understand that having a link for every word would strain the current system, because

• readers look for the blue links as a quick indication of subtopics to explore, and if you have extras it is much harder for them to go through them all
• it would be less readable in edit mode
• formatting all those links makes the page larger to download and process.

But I really don't mind if there's an extra link or two or three if the article is really long or has a complicated structure. I should note in particular that I think of the big custom navboxes as a spammy plague on Wikipedia, so I think that if they are allowed to use a second instance of a wikilink that has already been made in the article text, then any table or figure with a legitimate purpose should certainly have more right to. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt. I'm rapidly losing interest in the topic myself because it's taking up too much time for me and others, seemingly with almost no chance of achieving anything worthwhile. Still, I will just mention that I find the first of your points very important, but it could seemingly be solved by having first links in blue as at present, and repeated links in, for instance, green (for the price of at worst a day or two of computer programming, and quite likely it only involves changing a single already existing line of code to say green instead of blue). A possible variant would be to give the reader the option of showing repeated links in green, along with an explanatory text on why he or she might want to do this. And because there are already many repeated links in existing articles, this seems, at least to me, to be a programming change worth making even if we don't change our existing Overlinking rules. Do you by any chance happen to know offhand where one can suggest such programming changes (don't worry, if you don't know, I can probably look it up somewhere), and do you expect it would just be a further waste of time to suggest such a change (in any of the variants that I've mentioned, and/or in others that you might think of yourself)? At least to me, readability in edit mode seems much less important because it is at worst a slight inconvenience for us Wikipedians (editors), whereas missing 'green' links is an inconvenience for the readers whom we Wikipedians are supposed to be trying to serve. Obviously I can't be 100% sure, but I expect that, if programmed efficiently (as it probably already is, given how many repeated links there already are), the extra processing time for the repeated links would be pretty negligable, and 'between very probably and almost certainly' so small as to be incapable of being noticed by readers. (I also note that, at least as far as I can see, neither readability in edit mode nor saving processing time seem to be mentioned at WP:OVERLINK as a justification for our rules against repeated links).Thanks again, and all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be possible, say with a Lua script to generate a delinked version of a fully linked page. I could write such a thing but the problem is that nobody would want to update pages with all those links. Wnt (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Firstly, I didn't mention writing a delinked version of anything. I suggested changing (or optionally changing) the colour of repeated links (of which there are already millions) from blue (as at present) to green. In principle this is no different from the way the program already presents some internal links in blue (those whose article already exists) and others in red (those whose article doen't yet exist), and probably just involves a one line change to whatever program currently colours those links red and blue to add (or optionally add) a third colour, green. The main advantage of the suggested programming change, as already mentioned, would be for displaying our existing repeated links, specifically in line with your own excellent point that blue links should give the reader 'a quick indication of subtopics to explore'.

Secondly, I can't see why 'nobody would want to update pages with all those links'. What links? In the first place, there would be no extra links unless our rules against Overlinking get changed, which I would like to see, but which seems extremely unlikely to happen in practice, whereas, as already mentioned, I think the suggested programming change would be mainly useful for displaying our existing repeated links, for the reason that you brought up. But even supposing the Overlinking rules did change, I think it highly unlikely that it would stop anybody updating anything. The vast majority of extra links would simply be changing Einstein to Einstein by adding 4 square brackets, which has minimal effect on the readability of edit mode, especially compared to the effect on edit-mode readability of highly complex links such as citations (of which we are rightly obliged to have many). The millions of existing repeated links do not seem to have resulted in 'nobody updating pages' (if they did, Wikipedia would not exist). And if necessary, any hypothetical changes to Overlinking rules could still place restrictions on how many repeated links one could have and how complicated they could be, even though such links are almost never much more complicated than 'Albert Einstin|Einstein' between 4 square brackets. But in any case, as already mentioned, there almost certainly won't be any change to Overlinking rules, and therefore there won't be any extra links, and thus nobody will be deterred from updating pages as a result of extra links.

However, I take it that your response means you don't think my suggestion is worth pursuing, so I don't think it's worth wasting any more of your time on the subject. Thanks for your time, and all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I thought you were talking about adding more over what we have now. Your idea as you clarify it is interesting... it might even be doable with a custom .js file. I'm not sure how long it would take to search for duplicate links each time a page is viewed, though (my guess is that it might be OK though). Wnt (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt. I simply have no idea what you mean when you talk about 'doing it with a custom .js file', so perhaps I'm missing a bureaucratically much simpler and quicker solution. But with that caveat, the position as I see it is as follows: Provided one is modifying the existing program (the one that decides whether to show a link as red or blue), and provided that program is not surprisingly inefficient, it shouldn't take any noticeable time at all to 'search for duplicate links each time a page is viewed', because the program should in effect already be doing that search, and if by any chance it isn't doing it already, then amending it to do so will not slow the program down, it will speed it up. The point is that when a new internal link is encountered, the program has to check whether the article already exists on Wikipedia to decide whether to show it red or blue (and seemingly it does this each time the page is loaded, to avoid missing the latest new articles - as I think I've noticed whenever I create a re-direct 'article'). The first time this check is done for a particular link, this requires a database call, which is slow because such calls ultimately work at the speed of rotating disks (though no doubt there's a certain amount of buffering of data in high-speed memory to speed things up a little). But there should be no need for a second such slow database call for a repeated link because the program can check whether that link already exists in an internal table (created within the program) that stores the result of the first database call. Looking up such internal tables should be fast because such internal table look-ups operate at the speed of electrons, which is normally a significant fraction of the speed of light. So if the program is efficient it will already be looking up such an internal table to avoid unnecessary duplicate database calls, and all that should be needed is a one-line change in the table look-up code to change the colour from blue to green for repeat links (or to optionally do so based on some 'reader preferences' setting, or cookie, or whatever). If the program currently has no such internal table look-ups, then modifying it to include them should speed it up.

But either way this would seem to require a (small) modification to a core Wikipedia program, and that presumably (and quite rightly) ultimately requires going through some kind of very formal program modification request procedure, though the first stage is likely to be a rather simpler (but still possibly rather time-consuming) one of putting a suggestion (plus justification) into some kind of 'official suggestion box'. So if I do in fact want to proceed (I'm not yet sure it will be worth the effort), or if you want to proceed (after all, it's as much your idea as mine), it seems to me that the first step would be to find out where that 'official suggestion box' is. Do you by any chance happen to know where it might be?

Or at least that's how I see the position. But then, as I already said, I simply have no idea what you mean when you talk about 'doing it with a custom .js file', so perhaps I'm missing a much simpler and quicker solution (at least in the sense of fewer bureaucratic hoops to jump through, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SKIN and especially WP:US, and WP:VPT is the place to propose. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources in medicine, I partially agree with.

Hi, I barely noticed your edit to identifying reliable sources medicine (diff), and I agree with a lot of it. I also noticed the proposal on the talk page, but I was fine with leaving that part alone. Primary sources are discouraged by many editors (but are allowed by Wikipedia) when they are very important, up-to-date, and reliable, especially when no other sources exist. I will leave a comment on that page, even though it is late. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mother's Day Parade shooting

The article was deleted, but I asked for it to be userfied, and a copy of it is in my userspace here. You are welcome to edit/update it. Cardamon (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonymity

You may be interested in some of the discussions I'm having, or the arguments I've put forth at User talk pages of Anthonyhcole and John lilburne regarding the pseudonymity discussion on Wales' talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Module:TrainingPages request

Hi again! I have a new request for improving Module:TrainingPages, if you're up for it. See the talk page.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken post

Hi Wnt, with this edit of yours you have actually broken to initial posting of Pldx1, the upper part of which is now orphaned. Recommend to correct this. --Túrelio (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it before I looked at it, but thanks. Wnt (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed#Contentious images.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wnt. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed#Contentious images.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neutron star and tiny black holes within

Thanks for your answers to my question. I put a in a reply with further questions just now.Rich (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ammonites in WP

Greetings, User:Wnt! I hope you don't mind that in the current WP:RD/H#Where did Jews come from before the Exodus? thread, I corrected your original link [[Ammonite]]s to the piped link [[Ammon|Ammonites]]. Thank you for participating on the RefDesk. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Colgate

I hope you were referring to the OP and not me with this comment. [52]

I was saying that it would be nearly impossible to make a trademark claim on such a use. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't think it was overly confusing ... my comment is directed at whosoever would remove the photo from Commons to protect a brand name, and only them. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Module:redirect

very nice. I have suggested that it could be used with template:navbar, but at first, we probably would just want an 'ifredirect' function add a tracking category (see template talk:navbar). Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kopex

Please check back at WP:AN. Someone who speaks Polish is willing to help, but he's got limited online time (and thus can't investigate the situation himself), so it would help if you'd suggest what he should say and to whom he shoulds ay it. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know that much - I was only pointing out that the guy probably owns the content and is editing about his own company like he has on pl.wikipedia ... how the admins choose to follow up on that is not up to me. But it won't hurt to look... Wnt (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

TARDquote template

Hope you didn't mind me changing your {{tardquote}} template, but I just couldn't resist... :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I seldom have a use for left:(x)em spacing and here where it was the logical thing to do I just forgot about it. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting exercise in CSS. The problem with my method is that you have to set a fixed left offset in em, whereas it should be based on the actual widths of the characters, which vary a bit according to the font. I don't know any way of accessing the widths in CSS. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, instead of a nonbreaking space maybe I should have used a display:none copy of the same first character with font-size at 50%...

i.e. "." ... but that doesn't look as well tuned on my monitor as your solution, theory or no. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your brilliant comment on Jimbo talk page. You give me hope we will not die in a hole of moral panic. Thanks. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And again, excellent edit. I am personally quite neutral on the silly Russavia mess, but the core of your comment is excellently spot on. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of jailbreaks by al-Qaida affiliates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Correctional Center (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) 11:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Butterfly Wings

You didn't see the problems with those two questions? Either one of them alone would have been OK or if the second was asked some time after the first. However, saying "If I cut the wings" followed by "when a butterflies wings are cut off" indicates that they already know the answer to the first question. Looks a lot like trolling. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's a little kid. My priority on the Refdesk is to come up with an answer, not to evaluate the questioner. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pvt. Manning move vote

Just an FYI, I was reading through people's votes and you wrote "oppose", but your vote seems to indicate that you actually "support". The vote concerns a move back to Bradley Manning, not a move to Chelsea Manning. NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's right. As I said, it was premature to move it to the new title, but I want to see how this plays out a bit before I support moving it back. (There needs to be a little bit of "friction" built into the system or borderline articles would never stop moving back and forth) Wnt (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Excercise?

Link template?--Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 00:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're talking about at all. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Organized Crime

Hi, Wnt, I tried to answer some of your questions on the RD Humanities. Cheers, Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw, and thanks... still, to be honest, without seeing more source detail, I'm not sure how much confidence to have in your answers. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok for starters, read the wikipedia articles I linked. Then you can check these books: Pistone, Joseph, "Donnie Brasco" (1988), Raab, Selwyn, "The Five Families" (2006). Herzlicheboy (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

I have determined through some research that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, so I created THIS as means of dealing with it. Upon further reflection, perhaps best that I fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar so we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In-universe commentary about specific films should be primarily with those films, but to whatever degree that there is evidence that the company pursued a single consistent vision throughout its productions, it would be worth mentioning there, yes. I wouldn't put much emphasis on it because my feeling is that it isn't that hard to bring films from a genre into a single story - for example, my assumption at least is that Alien and Predator (or Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th) were first written as independent stories, but one need do little more than introduce the characters to one another to create a crossover film. (hmmm... that's a redlink? There's some work for someone who's interested...) Wnt (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments at active RFAR case

I have moved your original comments from the Manning case main to the talk page; the edit that moved it onto the talk page is this one. As your comment isn't exactly an evidence, I didn't move that there. For future reference, once a RfAr case has begun, no more statements are allowed on the main page; it should go on other pages where applicable. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it was begun. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It began when it got its own subpage. ^^; - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help

I'm glad that Sluzzelin and I could help with your question about surgery and gender identity disorder. A lot of people have huge misconceptions about things like what it means to be trans, gender dysphoria and the process of transitioning, and don't have a problem expressing their opinions on it as fact even though they've never researched the issue or tried asking a trans person or someone with experience in trans issues about it. It feel great to see that although you started out with a pretty big misunderstanding of the motives behind SRS we were able to explain things in a way that helped you better understand the reality of it. A lot of trans people (including me) love talking about this sort of stuff with people who show a genuine interest in understanding us and the issues involved. If you ever have other questions on transexuality feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. I can speak from experience or recommend resources designed to help non-trans people better understand us. Katie R (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Manning case has been an eye-opener for all of us. Little disputes like what pronoun to use in a history paragraph open up larger and larger questions about our underlying assumptions, from the nature of gender to the social basis of health care funding to, in this case, the ethical standards of physicians. I have a sense that every speck of dust contains the entire universe, but in this case this is more apparent than usual. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Really awesome post

I am in awe of your post at WP:Reference desk/Humanities#Prison deaths. You explained the issue comprehensively with a sensitive sympathetic touch. Very well done! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless the person who asked the question actually comes back and is successfully able to get involved here, these congratulations are premature, but thanks. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaker of the House discussion

Warning, it has been a few days & your WP:SOAPBOX response was appreciated but has its own potential Ref Desk violations & the original concern about "suicide" that "we all can dream" & references to terror attacks against a political figure remain (thou acknowledged as "most uncharitable"). Please strike or remove the offending material per Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, specifically: {{Collapse|1=

• The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. In a library, users consult the professional staff at the reference desk for help in finding information . . . The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project.
• The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources . . . responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute.
• The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate. . . answers must be verifiable, that is, to the extent the questioner wishes to verify that the answer is not fabricated, there should exist a reliable source (or sources) that would give the same answer. Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.
• We understand that some responses about very controversial subjects, or any discussion of what some may consider "taboo" subjects, are more likely to offend some people than discussion of other subjects. This is unavoidable. Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question. However, we take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses.
• Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is:
  • relevant to the question
  • not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and
  • not needlessly offensive.
• worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement.
• We should in all cases strive to exceed the minimum standard of civility. Assume good faith, and don't make the mistake of confusing an editor's poor English with intentional rudeness. Remember that all Reference Desk staff are volunteers and deserve to be treated courteously.
• a reader has no way to judge how reliable your information is unless you specify your sources. Even if your only source is, say, your own recollections from your school days, it is very helpful to state so in the posting.
• If somebody requests a reference for one of your own responses, please try to provide one or indicate that you cannot. If you believe your own earlier answer is wrong, you may strike it out or add a clarification.
• If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, add a comment explaining why you think so, and provide evidence, if possible. Make a serious effort to locate supporting sources, as you would in an original answer.
• A personal attack can be removed by replacing it by [Personal attack removed. ~~~~]|padding=20px}}

Thank you. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of my question was to check if there was a contingency plan to avoid default during unlikely but not impossible circumstances. It was no doubt useless to explain a comment (when does that ever satisfy anyone?) but your lengthy objections to various people in the discussion are the main disruption to any information to be had from it. Wnt (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You have stated that before, yet with false soapbox in both your question & follow-up. Thou that is a concern, the request for striking or removing is focused on "suicide", terrorism & "we all can dream". I've not "disrupt[ed] any information" with other answers, thou I can see your point that some contributions have devolved into a debate, your question was loaded from the beginning. I'll be happy to entertain your concerns on each of my responses if you wish after a reasonable resolution to "suicide" etc., I stand behind my contributions partly because they could never be construed as "dream[ing]" "suicide" on others. Thank you in advance for taking my sincere effort to resolve this seriously.

You have an opportunity to remove or strike the unnecessary hyperbole from the original question. Anything less would condone those terms in future queries. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem interested in drumming up some kind of objection. I may have digressed slightly after your first comment about how I asked the question, but whatever you're doing here is far more voluminous. I see nothing useful to be accomplished with this discussion. Wnt (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I should note that although your deletion of some of the above seems overwrought (and I don't get why you left the other boxed content I wasn't involved with) I'm not interested in edit warring to keep in irrelevancies. To avoid any confusion from your comments above, I should note here how the section stood as I left it in case anybody cares. [53]. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ABO blood group system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene sequencing (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) 09:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

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.

List of Forbes Global 2000 companies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Canon, Progressive, Resolution, Beam, AMP, Ashland, Corning, Aon, Visa, SCA, NSK, DSM, CRH, ADT, CA, EMC, TUI, Woolworths, San Miguel, Total, Continental, Computer Sciences, CCR, SAP, AMR, DCC, Eaton, Huntsman, Vale, Popular, Acer, SES, IMI, VF, Tokyu, Safeway, BPI, Oi, Lagardère, Goodyear, DLF, Hess, PPL, Alleghany, Bombardier, Anglo American, Kellogg, SLM, ITC, CSN, TDC, NMDC, CSR, PGN, Target, Wolseley, Vinci, URS, IHI, ACE, Ensco, Next, SAIC, PGE, Coach, Buenaventura, EDF, DNB, Lawson, Sharp, Lear, SSE, ANZ, Gap, Bunge, Merck, NTPC, Staples, Pearson, Prudential, State Street, YTL, Loews, Supervalu, AES, Ayala, Pall, CSL, WPP, SGS, Sika, Linde, Onex, TransCanada, FMC, WEG, ENI, Timken, Solvay, Industrial Bank, Chubb, ICAP, Genting, Orkla, JBS, Chevron, National Grid, SEB, Rio Tinto, ITV, HCP, Daimler, Obayashi, Wendel, Atco, PVH, Nürnberger, Walgreen, BYD, HDFC, MISC, LeGrand, Saputo, Terna, Fluor, Saras, SQM, China State Construction, Olympus, Cielo, Komatsu, Santos, ALFA, Andritz, Carlsberg, SCOR, Hershey, Maanshan Iron & Steel, UCB, McKesson, Shimizu, Brambles, American Electric, Caesars Entertainment, NHN, China Merchants Holdings, InTouch, Noble and ABB

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Forbes Global 2000 companies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Forbes Global 2000 companies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forbes Global 2000 companies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lung bacteriotherapy

Thank you for your kind words; and for all of your help with that lung bacteriotherapy idea. I would very much be interested in sharing notes; though I will be extra busy for the next couple of days. That's a very interesting article from nature, I found an article on nano particles getting stuck in the lungs and inducing pulmonary fibrosis. ^[54] I'm curious whether the iron eating bacteria slowly degrading the titanic's hull might be useful for this; or any of the bacteria eating sunken military vehicles and their munitions. I'm not sure how many sunken locomotives there are in the world; but this ship was transporting one along with plane parts, battle tanks and motorcycles. [55] Thanks again. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I have to admit, I had no idea siderosis was even possible. I would have assumed that the iron particles would be ingested by alveolar macrophages, which would secrete hydrogen peroxide and oxidize and get rid of it. Except, as your reference points out, iron oxide particles don't actually go away. Note though that the enzyme you'd need is therefore not one that reacts with iron, but one which ... does something ... with iron oxide. (I don't think you can just dock a molecule of transferrin up to a piece of iron oxide and grab a few atoms) You might find a page like this interesting, both as a source of information, and perhaps as a place to share your ideas. (The one I link there describes bacteria that reduce iron; if the particles in the lungs are iron oxide, then this is a way to do something to the iron, but how to link that to some other reaction to pull out an iron atom and take it away is another question!) Wnt (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is along the same line as the sunken ship bacteria; but even if this doesn't apply to lung bacteriotherapy; it's still an issue. The wikipedia pages for MIR and the International Space Station articles make no mention of micro organisms. There are certain fungal molds that develop in space stations than can produce an acid that eats through steel and plastics; needed so it can digest those materials.[56] I know straight dope isn't the best of sources however they mention an outbreak on the space station on Mir and the species have some amazing properties. [57] (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the page for MIR and the ISS. Here is another reference about microbial degredation along the same line; it's about microbial degredation of museum pieces; I didn't think yeast degraded bronze. I've also been adding a lot of references to microbial degredation of temple stone surfaces. [58] Also if other micro organisms such as mold and yeast can be used for this, I think the name of the page would be lung micro organism therapy; with lung bacteriotherapy being one type of micro organism therapy, which seems to be the type with the most references. I can find no instances of yeast or algae being used for lung disorders. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) I hope you don't mind, I added the references you found to the pages for iron oxide and diatomaceous_earth; I gave you the credit in the edit summaries. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Also it appears that there is a fungus which can consume the black carbon in soot; though it says this normally takes a century.

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steamroller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Clark (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) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great#Readability_and_writing_style

Mentioned there. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"put the financial information to know how much trouble WMF is really having"

Trouble? The Foundation is in a very healthy financial position indeed. Support was nearly $50 million last year (compared to $5 million in 2007/2008), $10 million of which weren't spent. Net assets were $45 million at the end of June 2013, compared to $5 million at the end of June 2008 five years ago. For data, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_foundation#Finances and page 3 of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/6e/FINAL_12_13From_KPMG.pdf

So when Jimbo says, "One thing we have learned is that putting financial information there is not an effective strategy.", what he means is they know it reduces donations when they tell people that the Foundation has tens of millions of dollars of unspent donations in reserve. People will give more money if they think that Wikipedia is about to go down for lack of funds, which many people have said is the impression the banner gives them. Cheers, Andreas JN466 11:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARE notice

There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

archiving at ref desk

There's an admin posts about archiving on the ref talk desk. He should probably be told, and I'd support a 7-day turnabout on all desks. The current 5-or-less is too little. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)