User talk:Amadscientist

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the chart at OWS

(Received on my talk page)

Just to let you know, generally the policy at Wikipedia is for the images and info boxes to be placed within the section that they have context to. Your recent edit moved the infobox I created to a section unrelated. Could you possibly change that back to be consistant with guidelines?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, the first paragraph of the section is very short, and it's unlikely readers would take the information out of context in this instance. The edit is just a layout edit, to make the article slightly easier to read. I'm not very concerned, and if you want to move the box down a few lines, then go ahead. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that section has been copy edited and it does now contain the information in that section. I have struck out the comment on your page. Since you moved it here (I am aware how you like to keep your page clean) I will strike it out here as well.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Neoclassicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical period (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) 10:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar Barnstar
		Thanks for the barnstars! Northamerica1000(talk) 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I love it. There's a barnstar barnstar!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy articles

From your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: "North...slow down and back away please so others can actually comment. I have tried three times and keep getting an edit conflict. At this point I kinda give up, but if this makes it..." (et al.)

Just answering specific questions and providing specific examples! Sorry that you experienced editing conflicts, but they do happen sometimes! Best, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. I hope to see a response from one of the other two to my question.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI - The discussion regarding the Occupy article redirects that you commented about has been moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Occupy article redirects. Best, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work with the Occupy articles. Funny how frantic some people are to delete perfectly good little articles in an encyclopedia that has a page for As easy as pie! Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsubscribe

Amad, sorry you received the newsletter. I'll make sure no more will be sent to you.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if this might be an issue, but you might check if you are listed as a member of one of the Christianity projects, and, if so, you might want to perhaps move yourself to "inactive" or remove your name. Like I said, I don't know if you are listed as a member of any, but that might have been an issue. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know which project they got my name from. I just object to their use of those member lists in this manner. However, if appropriate, then I wanted to be sure and let them know not to include me in further delieveries. It was not something I was aware could be done. Thanks for the comment!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally members of projects which share the WP:X banner template fall under the "umbrella" of WP:X. Most of the Christianity projects are inactive---we're just trying to get members interested in their projects again. We're gonna fix the system so it's easy and painless to unsubscribe. Sorry for the mixup and thanks for your understanding. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. This was clearly a good faith delivery of a newsletter that, as you say is under an umbrella project. My only question would be...do the other projects know that? I am also a member of project LDS. Is that a part of the umbrella? The reason I ask is that it is generally mentioned as "sister projects" so members understand the crossover and or limits to such. But it isn't a disaster or anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LDS better be part of the Christianity projects! I think they would be pissed if they were left out, lol. Keep in mind the newsletter is the Christianity newsletter. All sub/sisterprojects/denominations are supported. But it is coordinated at WP:X. It's the same with the new Christianity Noticeboard WT:XNB. The NB is for all Christianity issues, not just the Christianity WikiProject. In fact, my home project is WPCatholic. Anupam's home is WPMethodism. The benefit of a multi-project newsletter is that small projects can have a voice, and the larger projects save on admin and overhead. If a subproject wants to do their own newsletter and opt out--that's great! But until then, why not use Ichthus to get their message out to their membership? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Yes...they probably would be a little annoyed. That is a massive project from the sounds of it and it sounds like you guys are working very hard to get participation going again. I will also note that this answered a question I have been wondering about as to how these newsletters get delivered. I would hate to be the guy that had to manually deliver even 100 of them one by one! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out with making a compromise which allows for the efficacious delivery of Ichthus! Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope it made you smile! Have a nice night! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination)‎

Currently, you're down as "Keep and merge". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't vote for both. If you want content kept at the existing place, you vote "Keep". If you want content moved to another article, you vote "Merge" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Except the Keep is for the article and the merge is a suggestion for the future. I think you may want to leave others alone in this consensus as you appear to attempting to side step community decisions.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, AFD is not a vote. It is a community consensus discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge

Hi Amadscientist, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you've been working on the WP:WikiProject Merge page. It looks like you copied the directions from Help:Merging, then split it to Template:PMGGUIDE. In case you didn't know, WP:Copying within Wikipedia applies in all namespaces. The "from" note is a good start, but edit summary attribution is required. I will place {{Copied}}s unless you would like to practice. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remember that in the future. I will take care of it as practice.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I noticed that you are not including a link back to the source article when doing merges. For example, Merged per AFD discussion would be better as Merged from [[Southwest Airport Services]] per AFD discussion. I made the appropriate dummy edit. Also, {{Copied}}'s from_oldid should point to the source article. I fixed one as an example. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Merging Barnstar
		For being such a profilic merger and your effort at WP:WPMERGE. extra999 (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging and Articles for Deletion

Mad scientist, it's best to put merge proposals on hold during an articles for deletion discussion. The mere existence of such a discussion tells you that some editors don't see any content worth merging, and the only AfD results that allow the merge to proceed are merge and no consensus. I commented on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on there. I didn't merge the article, I selectively added information to an article about her husband the vice president. What is wrong with that. Is an AFD on the proposed article enough to keep editors adding content to another article? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Merge

Portal:Merge, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Merge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Merge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap _talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Merge

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge

FYI: I think you did a good merge on Mariology of the popes. Another one awaiting action is Roman Catholic prayer if you feel like doing it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging procedures

Hi. :) I appreciate all the work you're doing merges, but wanted to remind you that there is an essential step for attribution: providing a direct link to the article from which you are copying in your edit summary. This is the one step that should not be omitted; the history of the article needs to include this link. As Help:Merging notes, "Save both, and note the merger (including the page names) in the edit summaries. (This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" I see that you've done it with some merges ([1], [2]), but not others ([3], [4]).

Can you please go back to those articles into which you've merged content without a link in edit summary and add them, as recommended at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution, by using a dummy edit? I usually use text something like Content merged on date from [[article]], see talk for attribution detailed. That will help people find the precise diff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. I understand the mistake made and have begun using the attribution requirement in the edit summary as stated and have looked into the dummy edit procedures but have not had the time to attempt it yet. I was given this information by User:Flatscan who also noticed I was using the wrong oldid number and corrected it and the edit summary and left me links to. He has been incredibly helpful and all the information is being shared as part of WP:PMG. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed...

You accidently reverted me, not the sockpuppet of Penguinluver1431. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I did. Sorry, but another has caught it and reverted back!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Hi, I have submitted Dan Leno for GA consideration and I notice from the reviewers list that you are keen on subjects connected to the theatre. Would you be interested in reviewing? I would be most grateful if you could. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick glance and think it's a very nice article, however it uses at least one image that may not be licensed correctly and there may be a few other similar problems. best to review the criteria for GA and i will look further at the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll get onto it right away. Which images are in question? -- Cassianto (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may I ask that you please hold discussions about the article on either the article talk page or the GA page, as I have worked on this article for a few years and would like to join in the discussion. Thanks very much! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Amadscientist: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating templates

There's no need to create template pages for WikiProject page parts when they are only used on a single page. They should really be created as subpages of the project. I've moved some of the templates you created as follows:

Old location	New Location
Template:Tools and templates	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/Tools and templates
Template:Project content	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/Project content
Template:WPROME reassessment	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/Reassessment
Template:WPROME collaboration	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/collaboration
Template:Wikipedia Wikiproject Rome	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/header
Template:Wikiproject Rome article assessment	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/article assessment
Template:WikiProject Rome participants	Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome/participants
Template:PMGGUIDE	Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/PMGGUIDE
Template:PMGUSERBX	Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/PMGUSERBX
Template:PMGIntro	Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/PMGIntro
Template:WPMERGE barnstar	Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/WPMERGE barnstar
Template:PMGTPGT	Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/PMGTPGT

WOSlinker (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Moorer article

Hello,

I just nominated the article on Stephen Moorer for deletion, and noticed that you had attempted this before. I don't feel that Wikipedia is the place for subjects that are only noteworthy to a regional audience and not Wikipedia in general. Perhaps this article ought to be merged into the Pacific Repertory Theatre article? In any case, I thought you may want to know. Thanks, Kkbay (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Touré

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Touré. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Amadscientist. 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! 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:99% redirct

Can you point me to the discussion where it was agreed that this was a suitable redirect for the OWS wiki project ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There was none. I set up the redirect, but if you object for any reason it can be discussed on the talk page of the project. If no one objects I will not object to it being given up.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(This barnstar was retracted by the giver and this post deleted.)

The Surreal Barnstar

Thanks for taking the "hot potato" once I willfully disregarded the consequences of resurrecting the most powerful & most important (for getting Obama re-elected) Wikiproject known to the 99%. See HERE where it says in no uncertain terms, "Obama’s advisers say they plan to harness this frustration in the presidential campaign by drawing a contrast with Republican candidates who favor rolling back the Dodd-Frank legislation." and could not be any better (or any worse, if you're disheartened/disillusioned) due to this God damned poll which says Obama is down by 2%. I entrust all of my fellow wiki-editors to know the inherent truth behind recent 2012 rumors (backed by search results) of "occupy co-opted" or "occupy cooptation" or "occupy leadership change" etc... That WaPo article was dated November 6th 2012' and I hope my cover is blown now, in no uncertain terms, that if we the OWS sympathizers can "gently encourage" Obama's reelection, then we can do the same shit to Republicans as they did to us in 2010? In case you forgot, remember how frustrating it was when Obama's stimulus package failed horribly because Republicans in the senate & house (during filibuster-proof majority) gave us a stimulus package that was too small. 787 billion was way too small for our 2.8 trillion dollar national economy. We needed a stimulus at least twice as big, and we got screwed by the 1% who lobbied republicans into breaking Obama's neck and extending the Bush tax cuts by an extra two years. I give no excuse (as you busted my chops here on your talk page about me being pro-OWS, and I assume you are as well... Which leaves me to my final question. Are the "sheeple" (sheep-people) who are pro-OWS at least ~85ish% convertible into voting for Obama? If so, then Obama will get reelected. If Obama's political geniuses cannot "harness the frustration" of OWS supporters on or about November 6th 2012, then we are fixing to get blamed for the economy (which was Bush's fault), get blamed for high unemployment (which was Bush's fault), get blamed for high gas prices (which was Bush's fault), and get blamed for the high national debt/deficit (which Obama can eliminate if we simply tax millionaires the same rate as their secretary!). I chose to deliver this message on your userpage because you are one of my skeptics. Yes, I am pro-OWS; but, now I'm urging you to recognize that it's just been a mask to co-opt a reelection strategy for Obama. If you don't think Wikipedia can influence "sheeple" then click here but I'm sure you know the impact Wikipedia, OWS, and Obama can have on our horrible country which is simply a ponzi scheme for the 1% to get rich at our expense. They have nice houses, nice yachts, beautiful wives, and only via wealth redistribution does anyone in the 99% have a chance of getting our fair share of the immense wealth of the 1%, especially Mr. Romney's $300 million stash which he stole from Wall Street. I want you to be the most active Wikipedian and deliver at a minimum of 20 edits per day, all of which are modest/humble in length, and full of "win." 완젬스 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject OWS

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		A barnstar for you for proposing and creating WikiProject OWS. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I learned a great deal about the WikiProject Process!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the barnstar :-) and you've done a great job at WP:OWS! I've joined up to see if i can lend a hand. benzband (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Malware report

Since you are getting error messages from a site other than lds.org - I would suggest that you look for something on your computer (or your DNS service) that is redirecting DNS requests from the proper website lds.org to an improper one themormonworker.org - as I have had no problems with lds.org as reported by the other users. --Trödel 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the report was a mistake and has been stricken. I clicked the wrong reference when checking after an edit and hit the mormonworker.org reference which was next to the primary reference which I believe was lds.org. I have removed the section that was devoted to the improper link as having no context to the article and the bad link which is malware.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Pending barnstar

Can you make an OWS-themed barnstar? I have somebody I wish to give the first one to... 완젬스 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He already has (and a good one too) take a look at {{WP OWS barnstar}} benzband (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's so good! 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A much-deserved barnstar for you!

		The Project Occupy Wall Street Barnstar
		Hopefully this is the first OWS barnstar awarded! 완젬스 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA reviewing

Hey dude. I just wanted to thank you for reviewing this article. Let me know if you need anything. Cheers. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011

My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I generally don't give interviews. I also feel it would be unfair to participate in this when I didn't participate in the dispute resolution inquiry-also off wiki. I feel anything I could contribute would have to be as open as Wikipedia and not past it's onsite/official offsite functions of the foundation etc. I wont sign a waiver for this, sorry. I will give you this much as I have spoken about it before. It was not represented in the media accurately and was blown way out of proportion. Many, if not most of the stories misreprested Wikipedia and me as an editor. Thank you for your interest.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to respond and to explain your position and reasons for not participating. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DR

I have a new version ready for your perusal at the noticeboard. It incorporates your suggested sentence. Cheers! B^e——C_ritical 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

I just had a thought. You don't want the white powder paragraph in the article, and I think the pamphlet section is way too long. What would you think if I dropped the powder issue in exchange for you cropping the pamphlet section down to a paragraph? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Whisperback

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occupy Wall Street". 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 10 May 2012. 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. 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Hi, I was wondering whether there were issues at the Bradley Manning GA that you felt needed to be addressed, or where we go from here. I'm not hugely familiar with the GA process, so my apologies if it's too soon to ping you, but if there's anything I can do to clear up a concern, please just let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I can begin the review.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit confused now as you said you were withdrawing but have started the review. Also, the lead image is public domain because it's the property of the United States govt, and the image of him as a child has a fair-use rationale, so nothing is needed from OTRS. Or did I misunderstand? Sorry if I did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from the review. Sorry. I should mention it's with no prejudice so don't worry about anything I mentioned in the prereview notes. Going to be too busy to deal with it now with a pending mediation to deal with. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied to you on my talk page about the images (and thanks for the advice). Don't worry about withdrawing, I understand. Not sure what to do now though (do I put it back at the end of the queue?). Any advice would be appreciated. You can reply here if you prefer -- I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked some advice and will do what is best so that it doesn't show up as a second GA nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I appreciate that, and good luck with your mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And I shouldn't blame mediation, but the choice to clear my work load and there are some issues that make me uncomfortable reviewing the nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation comment

I edited the statement that you quoted from me, so you may want to update it. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. If it comes up I will simply point here to show that you altered the quote. Sorry, but I have already made a reply in a formal mediation to your comment. You need to edit the comment in a manner that reflects that you have CHANGED the text AFTER it was responded to. Thanks for letting me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do anything. The text you quoted changed; I'm just letting you know as a courtesy. What you do with that is your business. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold Idea to Renew the Occupy Wall Street Article

How about we, together, create an entire new article for this movement under a different name? We can show the administrators and possibly the higher elite that our article should be final, and the other article shall be deleted. Whatacha think? I'm willing to work with you and I have tried but there are too many OWS insiders on the OWS Article Page. I know they are because on the OWS site they have a chatroom meant to discuss the Wikipedia page. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You should edit the existing article and collaborate with with the editors there and be bold, but accept consensus while be sure to address your own concerns as well as the concerns of other editors. We don't need to rebuild articles but work with editors to improve the ones that exist.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In all respect, I cannot go back to that article for lawful reasons. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...OK. Well then "Encyclopedic Joshua", please be aware that what you are suggesting is a POV fork as described at WP:POVFORK. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you talk with the main contributors of that article to tell them I'm back and want to contribute, rightfully but only if they don't put any investigations against me again. Thanks. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How can I mediate anything? From what I am guessing, this may be Centrist Fiasco. If so you have been blocked or banned. In which case you need to take the proper route to re-establish the trust of the community. The first step would be to deal with your current block or ban situation through an administrator in good faith. This may mean "riding out' your block if it is temp or making a good argument as to why you should be reinstated. Don't let your anger at situations you see as unfair, allow your temper to over-ride your logic. Seek out an admin to request unblock and read up on the guide, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. You must show that you are willing to collaborate and work with others, follow the rules, and not be disruptive. Show that by following the rules, not being disruptive with sock puppets and collaborate by working with the proper admin to request your unblock in the proper manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, pal. I'll just stay away from the article for now on. I will, if necessary, put up suggestions on your Talk Page though. Encyclopedic Joshua (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well...if you are back with sanctions lifted i will not mind that. However, since you have offered no explnantion I have to discourage you from using my talkpage in an effort to persuade me of your issues in what could be seen as an attempt to game the system.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Camelio

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brian Camelio. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The discussion involves another editor, but I linked to a discussion you had with that editor on your Talk page. So, I am notifying you just in case you're interested in participating.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

hi

the you are correct is the correct grammar, you had it right first time. Penyulap ☏ 08:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe...

We could all take a week off. The moderator should be given a chance to wash off all the shit he got on his shoes. I'd think about holding a return to mediation as an option. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Be just apologized and understands your position without mocking or patronizing it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Divergent sandbox article

i just noticed User:Amadscientist/The Rocky Horror Show test page, which has by now diverged from the article. I was trying to clean up categories which have userpages in them. Since you may want to save this page for any future work on the article, i didnt nominate it for deletion, but instead i am dropping you this note to ask you to remove or place colons (you know, Category:Foo) in the categories. not a big deal, thanks for the hard work, your friendly neighborhood compulsive editor.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deviant art

I don't appreciate you jumping into my post to Penyulap. I didn't suggest for him to do anything wrong, and I don't think he would do anything wrong anyways. A warning like that makes it seem like you don't think he can be trusted. INeverCry 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I assumed good faith. You could as well. I warned only not to use images that are copy protected. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How is warning someone about copy vio and blocking assuming good faith? INeverCry 04:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How is telling someone here on Wikipedia about your collection from deviant art not a legitimate reason for a simple warning?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My collection is for my own personal use on my own computer, which isn't a copyright violation as long as I don't distribute it, make commercial use of it, etc. I didn't mention or suggest anything that violates copyright. You gave a warning where nothing wrong had been done or suggested. INeverCry 05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why it was a warning. If you had done something wrong it would have been speedy deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a really nice person. One of the nicest I've met in a while, and one of the most helpful. Thanks for watching over us. Have a great night. INeverCry 05:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist you didn't assume good faith at all. It is perfectly legal and allowable and normal to collect copyright work on your own computer in many countries. You may have made assumptions, but they were biased to your own geographical jurisdiction. I do like and welcome talkpage stalking, but I think I should put up a sign like on Auntie Pesky's page, 'mandatory truce zone'. My talkpage is a place where all accusations and warnings should be directed at me, or in turn, at those people directing such things at me :D Penyulap ☏ 08:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

From a completely uninvolved point of view, Amadscientist seems to have acted in good faith, certainly with his first post which is exactly as it appears - a warning not to walk down a particular path that may be available. Even if the editor has no intention of taking that path, there is nothing wrong with warning of its existence. Despite assertations that he is acting in bad faith to assume that the image suggestions were for upload, it is not bad faith if he thinks - and there is no reason not to - that the uploader may be unfamiliar with the licensing terms that wikipedia adheres to. In this case Amadscientists comments are perfectly reasonable.

Amadscientist makes no mention of what you are doing with images on your own computer - his concern is only that you do not make trouble for yourself by uploading said images to Wikipedia. Again, I see nothing wrong with that.

I would say that nobody is acting in bad faith, but some are getting riled up and possibly resent the impression of being told what to do, and posting provocative replies is probably not the best response, and I should know - having my own fair share of talk page fights. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

When you have time, please take a look at the current proposal, is this closer to what you were suggesting? — GabeMc (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, and for the sake of conflict resolution, what specifically are you opposed to in the current working prose? — GabeMc (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "crying" is the only word that's been inserted since you were in support. Can you tell me what I could do to better accomodate a fair compromise? — GabeMc (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Stepping up"

"Stepping up" means to take the action to a higher level than ANI, to RFC, RFC/U, ArbCom, etc., which is what I said in the same conversation and again in the closing statement. You are welcome to shop your complaint if you choose, but I think it will be difficult to find someone who sees it the way you do. Consider reading it again, including my close. If I was wanting to block you, I wouldn't have given you the notification above on 3RR, would I? I was even nice enough to not slam you with the big ugly WARNING template, instead just giving you a polite notice. There are no bad guys here, just differences in opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not shopping to take differnet situations to different editors or admin. Why don't you try re-reading those. Don't assume what I am looking for your assumptions are flat out wrong almost EVERYTIME.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect (and you do deserve respect) you accused me of altering policy and adding discussion first on BRD in an ANI that had nothing to do with that and was a false claim. You knew that the complaint stemmed from my NOT using discussion first to make changes on BRD and When EquazCion canvassed he got at least to editors to join and it was Equazcion who demaded discussion first be added to the essay. You cherry pick your administrative duties and choosewhen and wehn not to react and use the worst tactics. I beieve you give more weight to people clearly in the wrong simply to get the reaction you want to ban people. That is disgusting. You have proven you are NOT an accurate or well meaning administrator. You take sides based on your own feelings, personal dislikes and post them for all to see. I clearly see why Equazcion and Becritical are given far more attention and reaction on ANI even when they are complaining about shit that has no bases you spoon feed them. You should be de-syops.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, I sent POLICYPRICK to RFD where it is on the way to be deleted. It was inappropriate for Wikipedia, per your observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...you do realize that it was his intention to"step up" this sort of behavior at your very suggestion of stepping up. You did not tell them it was meant as per policy you just said step it up and clearly this is what Becritical believed you meant. I don't know why you warned me about 3RR. Your own words about such warnings do not leave me thinking this was an accurate statement, when you confessed on ANI to using warnings to get a reaction out of editors to ban them. Also it appears that warnings on Wikipedia are only given after an incident occurs. That is what Equazcion has been telling people I encounter or talk with so....I have no clue why you warned me about 3RR. Heck...I only made two reverts that time so for all I know you were making it up.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I warned you because I saw 3 edits in just under 24 hours (one was from the day before, but was still within 24 hours), and the last thing I wanted to see was B taking you to 3RR. I left a personal note as a favor, as a "hey, you are getting close, watch out". I wasn't taking sides, I was trying to prevent you accidentally creating a situation where you could be drug to 3RR. Any time I see an edit war situation at 3Rs, I always warn. Always. I don't want to see it at the boards, they are full enough, and full of drama. I would do the same for anyone, not just you. I don't jump down B's throat, but then I don't jump down yours either. I leave personal notes instead of big ugly WARNING!!!! templates most of the time. I clearly told him that step up meant RFC, etc., I told him to use the official channels, and once I saw that he did something silly, I went to get it deleted. Had you brought that to my attention on my talk page, I would have done the same, I just happened on it because I stalk Drmies page. I'm not taking sides on this, and I genuinely do not care what you guys decide is on that page. I might disagree with some of your methods, but I disagree with some of his as well. My goal is keep the drama down so you can find a solution, or point you to the proper board to find resolution, which isn't ANI or 3RR. If I ever leave a warning or notice on your page and you disagree or think I'm wrong, just politely ask me on my talk page to explain. I will either provide the explanation and/or diffs, or if I'm wrong, I will go to your talk page, retract, and apologize. Most people find me quite reasonable, even if they disagree with me from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Believe it or not, talking these things out shows more than just watching anothers actions. Sometimes people just piss each other off. And sometimes they eventually get over it. I am slowly getting over it, but thanks again for taking a moment to post here! I don't think you ahould lose adminship over this. That was to harsh a critisicm.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see Dennis saying "step it up"? The only thing close to that is his comment here to 'bump it up', which is clearly referring to DRN, the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is a step in the overall Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process; and it is very clear that User:BeCritical understood that Dennis was talking about the WP:DR process, because BeCritical actually refers to Arbitration, followed by Dennis mentioning WP:RFC/U and Wikipedia:Arbitration. "Stepping it up" and/or "bumping it up" has nothing to do with a suggestion to go to more extreme behavior in an attempt to elicit a sanctionable reaction from you. Nor do any of the other comments by Dennis even suggest such a thing be done, or has been done.

Secondly, you were indeed at the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR with three clear reverts in 24 hours, [5][6][7] Had you reverted again within the next 26 minutes (yes, it's just that strict of a line), you could have been blocked without further warning, since you had been warned about 3RR several times in the past - it was very generous of Dennis to warn you. You were edit warring against multiple other editors. And just a reminder that you don't have to cross the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR to be blocked for Edit Warrring, so be more cautious and find consensus on the talk page instead.

Dennis is a fine admin and has been nothing but helpful and nice to you, I think you should return the favor, show him some Good Faith and stop the accusations of wrongdoing on his part. Dreadstar ☥ 19:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you reflect on User:Bbb23's comment in a later section about your wildly incorrect "egg people on" accusation; I fully agree with User:Bbb23's view on it. Dreadstar ☥ 19:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dreadstar, that you were unable to find the statement, it may have been altered or deleted. I have not checked. As for the 3RR mention, as I stated it was in reference to a claim by another editor that warnings are only given after an incident and not before. Clearly warnings are given BEFORE and incident occurs. I have no doubt that that Dennis is a fine admin and again it wasn't as much what he may have meant it was what it looked like to other editors and what they took from that. And one last thing. I would ask you to simply to understand that the admin accused me of wrong doing and made a statement that was not accurate, to me that looked like wrong doing. While it doesn't help any situation to hurl accusations it also doesn't help to tell one editor to not make accusations when another has done the same. You are all decent admin, but everyone makes mistakes...even you and even me. It doesn't matter if one editor is an admin and another is just an editor, we all have reason to discuss these things and i am very happy that Dennis replied today as I have. No need to make this more than it is at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've examined all three diffs by Dennis in that ANI discussion and none of them even mention "stepping it up" as you describe, the very first edit mentions "bumping it up" to DRN just as I said.first edit, second edit and last edit. So if you saw "stepping up" with a different meaning somewhere, then you'll need to prove that with a DIFF, and until then, I strongly recommend you discontinue and even retract your accusations. I have no idea what you're talking about when you're referencing warnings and comments by another user, but warnings are givin before and after "incidents," depending on the situation, and in some cases a warning is not required at all! You need to read and become more familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, you seem to misinterpret a number of them, and then you make what appear to be false accusations against others based on those misinterpretations - and when others, including admins attempt to explain it to you, you stand defiant instead of humbly accepting their helpful advice and information. You've shown no evidence that Dennis did anything wrong; and from everything I've seen, he was absolutely correct in his warnings and comments about your editing. I see this same tendency in your editing on articles and their talk pages, and your dealings with other editors there. I'd strongly recommend you re-evaluate your own editing. Dreadstar ☥ 20:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• {copy)User:Bbb23's comment in a later section, I take everything Administrators say to me seriously, including advice they feel I should dwell on by others they may have seen elsewhere. I looked at the link you left me but was unable to find the comment. Regardless, I will take your comments seriously and hope you realize I take my work here seriously as well and look to this kind of advice. If you have a quote you can leave it on my talk page so I'll know what he stated.--Amadscientist 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was referring to this comment. I have your talkpage watchlisted; you can reply here so we can keep the thread together - I'll be sure to see it and reply as needed. Dreadstar ☥ 20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dreadstar is correct. It was "Bump it up" as seen in this diff [8]. Dennis simply didn't correct me, probably (and this is an assumption) because "bump it" and "step it" do not have differring meanings. But Dennis Brown did not say "step it up". It was "bump it up". It was this post that concerned me more [9] where he stated it meant whatever they wanted it to mean and the actions immediatly after this lead me to believe they took that as any action they felt was justified. So, for the acctual words used, I was innaccurate and mistaken and I extend an apololgy to Dennis Brown for that mistake.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you took my comment wrong, but I meant what I said, "I think you may have to bump it up a notch to get any action. This isn't really an "incident" as much as it seems like a long term pattern of acting like an obstructionist. " Note "incident" in quotes, which is the "I" in ANI. ANI is for incidents that require immediate action. Nothing you did required an admin jump in and take action that minute. ANI is not for dealing with long time issues like obstructionism, incivility or edit warring. I tend to use the quoted "incident" often, as many people think that ANI is the catch-all place to just complain about other users, and it isn't. (search the archives, I point out that the "I" in ANI stands for "incidents" regularly) In the dispute resolution hierarchy, you have talk pages, Wikettique, ANI, RfC-RfC/U, ArbCom, etc. You work at the lowest level, then bump it up (step it up) if you can't find resolution at the lower level. I'm not the only one that uses that type of terminology, it is relatively common and actually fits the descriptions of the hierarchy system. I didn't correct the term "step it up" because they both mean about the same to me, and I don't like to get bogged down in minutia. I answered your questions at ANI when they were peppered with overtones [10] in a sincere fashion. I tried to give you a polite heads up that you were approaching 3RR [11] with a generic summary and header, simple message, hand written. I think I've been quite civil in this thread as well. I didn't come here to get you to retract your unkind remarks. I have been extremely generous in my offering of good faith, more than most people, I dare say. I've taken extraordinary steps to explain all this, which is unusual in most situations like this, as the other person usually understands my reasoning and doesn't question my good faith, even if they disagree with me on my observations. I had hoped by now you would understand my motivations for coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• By now? No...I thought I had at the point I stated "Thank you for that. Believe it or not, talking these things out shows more than just watching anothers actions. Sometimes people just piss each other off. And sometimes they eventually get over it. I am slowly getting over it, but thanks again for taking a moment to post here! I don't think you ahould lose adminship over this. That was to harsh a critisicm.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)" But another editor/admin did point out the error and i had to oblige him as they were correct. Not as a means to stretch this out...although i really don't mind reasonable discussion on my talk page by admin who are attempting to show me where and why I went wrong. That, and i also don't have a problem making apologies if I believe I did make an error. And I am sure I mistook your words more from what I percieved in other editor actions and not just what you said, kind of stupid of me no matter how you look at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not a problem. I am hopeful that you and B can move forward and find a resolution, if not on the talk page, at another place like WP:DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• The reason I focused so much on the wording (bump vs. step) is because I wanted to make sure we were all looking at the very same comment, because there is no way I could possibly interpret Dennis' statement the way you did, Amadscientist; and no one else gave any indication that they took it the way you did, quite the contrary, everyone seemed to understand exactly what Dennis was referring to and that was to 'bump it up' to tne next step in the Dispute resolution process, the only one who seemed to take that comment as an exhortation to behave badly in order to elicit a sanctionable response was you, Amadscientist. Now that I know we're talking about the exact same statement, it's the not a problem of exact wording, it's the intent and interpretation of the words that all of us read, words that were seeminly misinterpreted soley by you.

So anyway, hopefully that's all cleared up. As to the behavior of others, if you think another editor ramped up with bad behavior to elicit a sanctionable response from you, please provide evidence of that so we can take appropriate action. If you like, you can email me the evidence and I'll look at it. I haven't noticed that on the article talk pages I watch, but then, I don't see everything.... :) As far as "by now", your recent comments still had criticism of Dennis, indicating that you thought he made a mistake - which tends to push aside any associated 'thanks' you may have added, so that's why I think Dennis phrased it that way - neither he nor I can see any mistake he made, nor can we identify others who mistook what he said. Dreadstar ☥ 00:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Dennis took care of one issue that I have already sought the advice of another admin on. The other issue I saw was similarly asked to a different admin as it was a different issue with a different editor and sought an opinion with no editor named but Dennis Brown and my perception that the editor took this to mean taking action by other means. I have as yet to see if they even replied actually. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)