User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

Thanks for your comment

Thanks for your comment. This whole thing is very personal I think and in the day now that I had exposure to the subject matter I have come to realize that there will not be a solution at AE due to the drawn battlelines I have stumbled upon. Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Hi, I just emailed your code again. Let me know if you need anything or it doesn't work. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your insightful post

I found this AfD post of yours very insightful and thought provoking. Good work! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Purnell

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on Louis Purnell

Nice job on the Louis Purnell article and DYK. I was just checking the stats and saw that the DYK brought nearly 4000 hits to the article, which I thought was excellent. There should probably be an article on every one of the Tuskegee Airmen. They were truly national heroes.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We were lucky with Louis. Sadly, it does not appear all that many made it to a place where getting down their individual history in a reliable format mattered . . . yet. And even with Louis, it would be great if there were more to fill in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti FA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Georg Solti become a WP:FA.

This user helped promote Georg Solti to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment

Hello, Alan. Your input on the infobox discussion would be helpful again. Thanks! Sleddog116 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DRV

Hi Alan. I've taken a CfD you closed to deletion review, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2#Category redirects. To be clear, I'm not disputing how you closed the discussion, more how the discussion was handled. In any case, you are welcome to participate. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For exemplifying what makes a true Wikipedian. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Since you were a discussant at User_talk:Fram#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	focus
	Thank you for your contributions to quality articles such as George Solti, for creating them, such as Louis Purnell, and for requesting focus saying: It is only slightly more wordy to say, "that comment makes no sense because ..." than to say, "you're an idiot", - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 232th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize , --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Right things in the right places

I said I wouldn't respond in the discussion about sources on twin cities to any more ad hominem comments. Do you actually know what ad hominem means? Click the link and you will see that it means "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it" and is regarded by logical thinkers as a logical fallacy. Here on Wikipedia, we do not resort to insulting those we disagree with in order to try to win an argument. This is because, not only is it quite likely to make others see through the paucity of the tactic, but also because it is specifically prohibited by our policies WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Now, I see you have never been blocked, and I am sure you would like to keep it that way. I suggest therefore that you will wish to keep any further comments on that discussion to the points we are debating. Any concerns you have with my conduct may best be raised with me at my talk in the first instance or else here, since we've started now talking about your conduct. Best regards, --John (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Your edits have demonstrated conduct, competence, and bias problems. That is not an ad hominum. That is an observation on your conduct, not on any issue. The issues are addressed elsewhere. And, you have again construed policy incorrectly, which may be pattern related to your increasingly poor conduct, like that above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at Lake Michigan-Huron

I am curious (not arguing, mind you) about your contention that international treaties apply to Lake Michigan. Could you give me an example? I realize international navigation treaties apply, as they do to all bodies of water that are reachable from the ocean (eg Mississippi River, also entirely in the US). However there exist several fishing regulations that apply to Lake Michigan only, due to its unique position among the Great Lakes. I am simply curious and was wondering if you could point me to a place to look. Thanks, and happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was mostly thinking of this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Saw that there. Thank you for your consideration. What a mess! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates for user information

Hi Alan!

Elen of the Roads suggested that you might look at other templates for user information. Regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The voting arbitrators indicated that the community is currently discussing civility enforcement. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Alanscottwalker, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ROI

Just a pedantic point but with Irish titles it is best to get it right. You wrote in your summing up: "Arbcom, in the past, has counseled that these matters should be governed by reference to the current MOS, which also appears to be consistent with current title policy". Article titles should be governed by reference to the article title policy not the MOS guideline. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what was said. I was referring to the Arbcom decision that stated that the consensus is embodied in the Irish MOS, and that it is (still) consistent with current article title policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC) In short, no one is writing on a blank slate here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti

Excellent suggestion - many thanks. I hope the drive-by editor agrees. Tim riley (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We can all reason together, one hopes. Glad you are back, by the by (even if I do think Hungarian was OK ;)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar 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/Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar 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 template from the top of the article. Mitchumch (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Thinking about it would be good"

Oh, thanks for recommending me to think, how civil of you. No, you can't put your fist through the screen and punch somebody in the face on the internet. Therefore, I wrote "as violent and hostile an action as can well be performed on this site", trying to make sure readers got it that I wasn't carelessly implying it was just like physical violence. I guess that didn't work with everybody. Also, Alanscottwalker, you should assume good faith about the blocker's intent, as did I. The intent of the blocks is not the point, but the effect of them. My interest is in how the blockee is affected, which is why I requested empathy from Ironholds. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

The thinking part came from your comment. The violence part, also. It just does not make sense to discuss it as violence. None of my comment assumed anything about anyone's intent. Why would anyone assume Ironholds had no empathy? One would assume quite the opposite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

? "Whether it was hostile is more of an intent thing". Never mind, not worth spending any more keypresses on. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

That question doesn't assume anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Hello Alan, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments, especially for making the point that "ramming consensus down throats (is not a good thing)", and "Guidelines have built-in flexibility, more so than policy". Newyorkbrad's 2011 comments are also sensible. As others point out, it's not a "one size fits all" thing. Airports—for example—are free to choose names with or without hyphens or dashes, and it's surely not Wikipedia's job to correct names that are "wrong", "because MOS says so"—or to rewrite history, for that matter. LittleBen (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed appeal of topic ban

Mentioned here. LittleBen (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for supporting Fair Play, Reliable Sources, and NPOV.
• Arbcom has concluded that the claim of outing was bogus. Obviously it was just to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. Konjakupoet has outed himself with links to his own previous user identity in the ANI discussion.
• As you can see from the cautions on his talk page: since returning to Wikipedia, Konjakupoet has continued the same pattern of repeated vicious attacks on other users that he showed under his previous user IDs.
• It's pretty obvious that the attacks on my repeated advocating of following Wikipedia rules on properly researching and neutrally sourcing BLP names and place names here and here were the result of off-wiki canvassing and mob organizing that is acknowledged here.
• I have lots of other facts organized into a case, and would be glad to get your off-wiki input on how to proceed (but my sending of email from WP seems to be disabled at this end). LittleBen (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I won't be giving input off-wiki. Sorry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Thanks again for supporting fair play. LittleBen (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Point du Sable

Hi Alan. Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what they updated as the entry looks much as it was the last time I read it. Since we debated this source I have tried to use alternate sources where ever possible in the article, only citing Swenson for things that other sources that Wikipedia would consider more reliable have cited him for. I'd love to include the Cahokia stuff—there was a good article on this on the St Charles, MS historical society website but it disappeared a while ago—but I've been waiting for a reliable source to publish it and it hasn't happened yet so I've given up waiting. Likewise, they had a good deal of info on his life in St Charles that would be great if it turned up in a better source. The essay "Where was the Du Sable farm of 1790" is interesting: I think too much speculation for inclusion in WP, but it brings home just how little is known for certain about Point du Sable's time in Chicago.—Jeremy (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Too bad about the lack of RS, but that's that. It makes allot of sense that he would be from Illinois Country, where he also died. I also wonder where they got the year of his settling in Chicago and other details re earlier life, hopefully they will publish all that sometime. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also confused by the certainty they use for the date of his arrival in Chicago. I was under the impression that the records of the Pinery show that he was there until 1784. Anyway, we'll see how the article does at FAC. I'm not sure that it will get through, but hopefully there will at least be some good suggestions for getting it through at a second attempt.—Jeremy (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Curtenius Roosevelt

KTC (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove it on Star fox commend?

Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.152.239 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to what you are referring to or at least tell me when and where the edit was? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to close

Hi. I modified the links in your message.[1] Here's the new link.[2] I mentioned it here because the posting rate of messages there is high enough that you might not have been aware of this. As I mentioned in my edit summary, revert if you don't like. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I would have preferred you not as those other links directly illustrate what I was trying to say but I don't want to spend the time to redo that. Thanks for the ntc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought I think your new link will be lost when that's archived, can you lock it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I thought it was easier to read and also that the context was important. But if you want to revert, I thought you could just hit the "undo" button, but maybe I'm wrong. In any case, if you like, I can revert it. Would you like me to do that?
• It's a permanent link to a specific version of the page from history, so the link won't be lost when it's archived.

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No matter. As long as the link won't get lost. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch

Pudgy fingers and trying to use a watchlist on a small tablet should be avoided! Thanks for fixing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whew! At least nothing got broken. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Awaiting to see how RAN responds to all that substantively. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche

You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Oops, thanks!--v/r - TP 21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay

I did eventually reply. Worm^TT(talk) 12:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:File-Susan Blow (Columbia) and Elizabeth Harrison (National-Louis) Kindergarten.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicago help

I am looking for another Chicagoan to assume some responsibility in WP:CHICAGO. Would you be willing to lead or co-lead the 2013 Chicago WP:WIKNIC. Could you please ping me if you are interested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry. I meant to respond earlier but it got away for me, unfortunately my time and inclination do not lead me to a favorable response. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Institute

We should obtain permission from The Art Institute of Chicago to have free use of Nighthawks - the image hunters want to delete it from all but two articles. Someone should call them from the Chicago group...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Museums

Please clarify where you stand at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#Going_forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Institute of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Brad Vice lede

Hi there. This seems minor, but we spent a lot of time trying to balance out the Brad Vice story after it was vandalized by Robert Clark Young, and I wonder whether it's fair to once again insert the controversy into the lede. I've brought this up on the talk page of the entry; you might want to weigh in. (I think the controversy should obviously be IN the article - it just shouldn't be one of the first things you encounter, or we're doing Young's work for him -- he's already essentially ruined this guy's life, from everything I've read.) NaymanNoland (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

...drip...drip...drip...beer torture! Drmies (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Water Torture

Your comment at ani was COMPLETELY....funny lol. I hope he gets unblocked and I am sure you don't agree (didn't read your rationale so I'm assuming) but still I had a chuckle at that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Re your comment on Jimbo's Talkpage

Re this comment

At first glance, I'd say Roy Cohn is inappropriately categorized as Jewish b/c, following the three rules, 1) Being born to "nonobservant Jewish family" does not in my mind make someone obviously and indisputably Jewish, 2) His being Jewish doesn't seem clearly relevant to his being part of the Second Red Scare (which seems to be the primary source of his notability), and 3) I don't see any evidence to suggest that he self identified as Jewish.

All that said, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing Roy Cohn is or is not Jewish. Merely that WP ought not list him as such.

re What is meant by "relevant to the subjects notability"? - In most cases, this seems as though it would be self-evident. The fact Martin Luther King was African American is clearly relevant to his notability. If he wasn't African American, he probably would be notable for what he was notable for.

re "controversial"? - I'm using "contraversial" to mean "lacks consensus". If you have one group of editors saying John is catholic, while another group says he's not, then his "catholicness" is controversial. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder about your personal standards, as they don't seem to be based in the discipline of biography. Someone who is raised in a Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life and is mentioned in their biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, your standard-less "controversial", smacks too much of a heckler's veto. We actually need agreed upon guidance and metrics to reach actual consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life" - Am I contesting that? My cousin's mom was a lapsed/non-observant Catholic. Catholicism had "some influence" on my cousin's upbringing. It would not be right to call my cousin Catholic. How is Roy different?

re "heckler's veto" - That's really what I want. You call for "metrics", but the problem is there are no metrics when it comes to race/ethnicity/religious affiliation etc etc. By what yardstick do I measure how black someone is? How catholic? How gay? What authority gets the final say on these matters? Answer - There is no yardstick. No final authority. The qualities are ultimately partially subjective.

Think of something else which is subjective (e.g. The Mona Lisa's beauty). If everyone (or an overwhelming majority of people) agrees the Mona Lisa is beautiful, it's OK to state unequivocally state "The Mona Lisa is beautiful". But as soon as you have a heckler who shouts "Hey, I don't think the Mona Lisa is beautiful", you can't really argue with that heckler, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the heckler is right..... NickCT (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic. The metrics are established by sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic" - Oh sure. But that's not the case with Roy, right? With Roy, the only thing that was stated was that HIS parents were non-observant Jews. Then the article calls HIM a Jew.

re "The metrics are established by sourcing." - You can't really source something that's subjective though. If I found an RS that said "The Mona Lisa is beautiful.", does that mean I could assert on wikipedia "The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting"? NickCT (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't conclude that in biography that bothers to tell us about his parentage that it is somehow irrelevant to his biography, to do so is OR. We reflect what the sources source, like religion and ethnicity and country and date and place of birth, and place of death, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "somehow irrelevant to his biography" - I don't understand. That's not the point I was making. Mentioning that HIS PARENTS were non-practicing jews is fine. But that's not what we're discussing. We are discussing whether it is appropriate to label him as Jewish.

You could say my cousin's Mom was a lapsed Catholic. You can't say my cousin is catholic. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing. I am just finishing reading a modern biography about Catherine de'Medici that goes on at length about her personal beliefs and how she was not a Catholic in the sense that the Pope's of her day, or Philip II of Spain would define Catholic belief (more into superstition, culture, and political use) but we would still categorize her as a French Catholic as would this and any biographer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing" - Wait wait. I feel we are discussing too different things. We are discussing whether Roy should be categorized as Jewish, right? Not about whether his parents should be.

re Catherine de'Medici - Well, I don't know much about Catherine, so a little hard for me to comment there, but I will say that your assertion that "any biographer" would call her Catholic seems a little hyperbolic. If she held "non-Catholic" or unorthodox catholic beliefs, are you really saying that no biographer in the world would dispute whether she was really catholic? NickCT (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Parentage is one of the ways Jewish is defined. As for Catherine, and what she illustrates, "opening windows" on souls is not the purpose of the categorization, it is the attribute that she has been given by the sources to illuminate her life, and others like her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "Parentage is one of the ways Jewish is defined." - Ok. So you agree then that there are multiple definitions, which is good because by inference you agree there are other ways it can be defined (i.e. you agree it's subjective).

Regardless this entire discussion is irrelevant. The real point, and the point I've been trying to make for a while is that SOME PEOPLE (like you) might look at Roy and reasonably say, "Looks Jewish to me", and OTHER PEOPLE (like me) might look at Roy and reasonably say "Doesn't look Jewish".

Answer for me one simple "yes or no" question; do you think that two reasonable people can look at the same subject and reasonably come to different conclusions as to that subjects appropriate "religious/ethnic" categorization?

Not sure I understand what "opening windows" means, but again, you didn't really answer the question. Sure some sources may have applied the categorization. But that doesn't mean all sources would.

Similarly, some sources may call the Mona Lisa beautiful. That doesn't mean the Mona IS beautiful. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple definitions do not make something subjective. It means you fit multiple things into the definition. And it's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of faithfully reflecting the sources. That's what we do, sometimes its hard, but that's what we do. So, your question is irrelevant but in general NO, if people agree on the metrics, they should come by reason to the same conclusion, and that is the assumption on which the project's consensus model is based. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "if people agree on the metrics" - But people never agree on the metrics. Going back to what I said before; there is no widely agreed on yardstick/metric by which to measure catholicness or Jewishness or African Americanness or what have you. If you disagree, can you point to one?

re "faithfully reflecting the sources" - Listen. Clearly we want to faithfully reflect sources. But the point is that that only applies to OBJECTIVE things. So, again, I'll pose the same question to you; if I find 10 RSs that say "The Mona Lisa is beautiful", does that mean I can state in an unqualified manner on WP that "The Mona Lisa is beautiful". NickCT (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources. We do not treat religion or ethnicity like you or I want, we treat it like biographical sources, and in biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," it is treated like sociological or psychological or historical fact[or]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re "There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources." - Those are the relevant metrics inside WP. I'm talking outside WP. Forgetting WP for a second, can you point to the yardsstick I mentioned?

re "biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," - Disagree. It is treated like beauty. Some sources will call the Mona Lisa "beautiful", others won't state it outright recognizing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, some sources may call Roy "Jewish", others will recognize that religious affiliation is in the eye of the beholder. Same thing. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Well, if you find a source that goes into detail about Roy Kohn's lack of Jewishness, it is probably also a commentary on his Jewishness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not pointing to that yardstick, huh? Ok. Well anyway, your reply seems a little off point. You're not answering whether you think his Jewishness is subjective. You just seem to be reasserting that he is Jewish. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No more subjective per se than his genes, his family, his culture, his nation, his time period, or the myriad of factors, which make up a life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, time period isn't subjective. I mean time can be measured with a clock, right? Time is an objective thing. Easy yardstick there. One's family isn't really subjective either, is it? Hard to argue with "John is Jim's dad". Either he is or he isn't. That's an objective thing. Don't really know what you mean by the word "genes". Culture and nationality can be sorta subjective. Hard to define how to measure cultural or national identity. You'll note that I included "national identity" as one of the attributes that we ought to be careful with.

So, go on. I've pointed to yardsticks for measuring objective things for you. You're unwilling to say that Catholicness/Jewishness is subjective. So point to the yardstick for me. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Einstein showed that time as subjective. And even father's cannot really know who is their son, unless we look to genes. But these things have accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and as long as they fit into the definitions they are what they are. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Einstein show that time was relative? But regardless......

re "these things have accepted definitions" - Eureka!!! And that's exactly the point. There are widely accepted definitions for things like time and parentage. They are objective. There is no scope, or very very little for personal viewpoints to influence those things........ Now, going back to the main question, once again! Do you accept that there are no accepted definition (exogenous to you or I) for things like Catholicness and Jewishness? Ergo those things are subjective? NickCT (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Those were obviously included in my "these things." All have widely accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and long before us, including religion and ethnicity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well, you seem to keep stating that they are easily defined and obvious, yet you seem very evasive when it comes pointing to obvious and widely accepted definitions. Listen, when I say "John lived during the 17th century" or "John is Jim's son" (objective statements), if those statements are reasonably sourced, they are almost never the source of much debate. Conversely, I can point to a slew of examples where I say "John is African American" or "John is Catholic", source it, and yet it still generates debate. Why do you think that is? NickCT (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably because people get emotional or ideological about certain things, so they ignore or pick and choose among broad definitional categories and don't follow sources in the usual manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're using terms like "broad definitional categories" which seems like a way to avoid the term "subjective". Maybe if we change the terminology here we can find more common ground. Would you agree that "Catholic" is a broader "definitional category" than something like "born in the 17th century"?

Seems to me that people could easily get emotional or ideological about parentage. I mean, sure a person's parents have a huge emotional impact on people. Don't you think it could be possible that the reason folks don't argue about parentage is b/c it's easy to define what a parent is? NickCT (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not something is easy, there is no dispute that many of these things are easy or difficult depending on the biographical persona being discussed and the proper use of sources -- made even more difficult when people don't know about the biographical subject at hand nor the sources, and still argue about it nonetheless because they choose to replace real work with their feelings or personal experiences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Qualify "many of these things". I mean, whether or not someone was born in the 17th century is never difficult right? It's hard to find much argument there. Someone's race/ethnicity/sexual persuasion/national identity is often difficult. You can't see that there is a fundamental difference (an objective/subjective difference) between the former and latter traits?

Additionally, I hope you recognize that "the sources" you keep referring can often disagree on subjective categorizations. For instance, there was some degree of debate around Meša Selimović was really Serbian. One could points to RSs which specifically said he was and others that pointed to the contrary.

You still haven't pointed to a yardstick for measuring Catholicness. NickCT (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, since my position is it depends on the article and issue at hand, I won't be pretending that one size fits all. But I will not support policy that is based on individual feelings and ideology, and heckler's veto. I have tried to make clear what the proper things to consider are (rs definitions and sources). But as no one can feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology, then I am comfortable with saying that that is not the way to proceed. I also think, we have reached the useful limit of the present discussion, but I thank you for it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that you can't accept that things like race/ethnicity/national identity/sexual orientation are inherently more subjective/open to interpretation than things like parentage or time frame in which you've lived. Based on some of your comments (e.g. "broad definitional categories", "these things have accepted definitions") and your refusal to point to an ethnic/religous yardstick I largely suspect you get this point but are just too stubborn to give ground.

Instead of using the term heckler's veto, let's use the term "lack of broad consensus". The point I've made from the beginning is that you should require a higher than normal level of consensus over race/thnic/national identity/sexual orientation categorization. WP has many policies which highlight the need a "higher levels of consensus" on certain topics.

re "feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology" - The point is, that with subjective matters, you are ALWAYS to some degree using feelings and ideology. By saying you think we can make race/ethnic/national identity etc attributions, you are in fact doing the very thing you say you're trying to avoid.

I too thank you for the discussion. It's OK we don't see eye-to-eye on this. It's a difficult point to get and one that requires some reflection. You have all my best.....

P.S. Told you this conversation would spiral out of controls. ;-) NickCT (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure you will see editors argue over the things like when someone is born in this year and then died in this year in the next century, etc. But the important issue is to establish the gound rules (based in evidence and sources) and let it happen. We know ahead of time they will never come to agree on each other's feelings and ideology, but on sources and evidence the community can reach a consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have scanned through 100's of debates on WP. I have never seen a heated dispute about the time frame in which a subject lived, or their parentage (i.e. the two examples of objective things). I've seen dozens relating to race/ethnicity/national identity/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter

Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!

Hi Alanscottwalker! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Waterhouse

Hi Alanscottwalker I noticed you edited a comment I made at Talk:Tom Waterhouse#Singleton. For my own education would you mind pointing me to the relevant guideline/policy that you are applied in this instance? best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere on the Pedia, including talk pages, as your comment there notes that edit is nonblp compliant, so just a link should be made if you need to refer to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Great that clarifies it for me. Thanks for taking the time to answer Flat Out let's discuss it 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Your reversion is disruptive. Yes, multiple editors are discussing the problem, but there is nothing actionable, no working solution, just a great deal of "I don't like it." This tagging is no longer appropriate.
Is the article perfect? No. Can it be improved with text brought from better sources? Of course. However, the notional "POV" aspect of the article name and of the article contents are contradicted by the great number of reliable sources discussing Detroit's phenomenal decline. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread what the tags say, and that you review your own edits in making such outlandish claims of disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying

Thank you for clarifying Wikipedia:Verifiability[3]. The clarification helps answer a question I posted to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#removing citations). --DavidCary (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Undue Weight on the Lincoln Park Zoo Article

Hey there. The other day, you added a box stating that part of the article has Undue Weight. Did you mean it gave undue weight to one exhibit to the detriment of the others, or some other reason? I usually add exhibit descriptions one at a time so I don't mean to give weight to the Small Mammal-Reptile House over others; I'm just adding new parts to articles when I feel like it. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article gives too much weight to one thing over others for things of like relevance, now. In the words of the policy and in my edit summary it is unbalanced. So, we tell our readers we know that (and that they should know that, too) by that tag, and we are working on it -- they can help if they like. And thanks for your work in progress, by the way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1864 Presidential Election; Harpweek

That information did come from Harpweek, at those links, but I'll admit I'm not sure if it still would have been a problem even were it given a proper reference as was my intention; I'm horrible when it comes to writing up the proper references, always forgetting a bit here or there, and so tend to leave hidden notes so that another can pick it up if need be. If need be that text can be ultimately be left out, but a lot of the information that was there SHOULD end up in the article in some capacity. --Ariostos (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest if you are using a website and you dont know how to cite just copy and paste the web address. Moreover, if the information should go in the article summarize it in your own words, and then copy paste the web address. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP

Hi, could you go back to [4] and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize

-- cyclopia^speak! 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops ...

... you′re right, of course. Thanks, cheers, Gott (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for your thoughts!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I award you the Socratic Barnstar for your participation in the Tammy Duckworth RfC. All of your insights were valuable to the discussion, especially your reference to the NPOV policy. Because of your novel approach, you prompted the rest of the discussion participants to assess the problem and its underlying policies from a different perspective. Thank you for your contributions! Edge3 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Alanscottwalker.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Alanscottwalker. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 624 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Manning RM procedure note -- misplaced or misformatted?

Is your "Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed ..." comment intended to be a support vote? As it is currently formatted and placed, it is not numbered as a vote and breaks the numbering of any subsequent votes underneath it. Regards, -- ToE 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a second paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I've reformatted it with a <p> to preserve the numbering. Cheers. -- ToE 12:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bright line rule

I'm really puzzled by the vehemence of the opposition to the bright line rule, not from people who want a better or stronger rule (as I do), but from people who want no rule at all. These aren't wackos but respected, long-time contributors. I just can't make any sense of this. The reasoning seems to be that one must focus entirely on content, but it seems totally at variance with best practices at every other publication, print or web, in the western world. My feeling is that unless the WMF or Wales take some kind of action themselves, perhaps through a COI policy for all projects, nothing is likely to be done if one is to rely on the "community." In fact, I suspect that if anything is done at all, it will be to remove the weak COI guidelines that already exist. Thanks for listening. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: International Association of Geoanalysts (November 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Terrible decision. I have responded at Fluffernutters talk page for the sake of the editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)

You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Deborah Rutter

Harrias ^talk 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Alan Season's Greetings and thanks for the DYKs! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian ANI

The ANI was closed due to the DRN but the DRN was closed because of the ANI. So where to go? What I included in the ANI is a conduct issue not content and I was not finished presenting the evidence in any case but can continue doing so at whichever forum is most appropriate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AN/ANI. Please advise. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Yes, we do need Wdford to comment. He meant well but I never did want those articles spun off. See the old archive for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article[5] - the section called Spin-off article and the one above it. I was away when that happened. Of course, it wasn't done to confuse editors. I don't know who did Archaeogenetics of the Near East#Egypt, a section which says its main article is DNA history of Egypt which says its main article is Archaeogenetics of the Near East. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the reply. I removed the comment and your reply. Hope that's good with you. Begoon ^talk 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section

Hi Alanscottwalker. Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section in January 2013, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Transclusion. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As I was typing

You prod'ed as I was typing a request deletion. Sorry. Murry1975 (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable

Hi there. With all due respect, this article is beyond the truth from the references provided. Please take it to the article talk page if you feel different. Thank you. SJ

My reasons for the change are now on the talk page.SJ

Hmm? I have responded at the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

I read your comment here. Would I be right in saying that you have commented at AN/I without having looked at the RfC? --John (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You would be incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So when you talked about the outcome of the RfC in the past tense, you knew that the RfC is still ongoing? --John (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Although, it would have been clearer to make my question more future/past conditional. I assumed no relevant admin action would take place before the close (as a result of the close) -- at which time the close would be in the past. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Got you. That makes sense. Thank you. --John (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

YW Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Skyscraper

My fault. Could happen to any of us. Good fix. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John Silvanus Wilson

slakr^\ talk / 00:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Cities in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cities for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:American Civil War

Thanks for removing the duplicate - might be the same bug that causes editors to get an edit conflict while at the same time the edit is actually saved. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)