Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I'm glad to have you back! Anderson - What's up? 22:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to be back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in Auckland, That's the city the website uses to display the current time in New Zealand. Anderson - What's up? 23:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1862 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

		The Morning Star Award
		For your tireless efforts at WP:LDS and Mormonism articles – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sir Lionel ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize Deseret News isn't reliable either, as it's an organ of the LDS Church? pbp 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The reliability of a source depends on what it's being used for. If we were using Deseret News to cite a controversial opinion about the LDS Church where editors may have a conflict of interest, then I agree. However when we're using it to cite uncontroversial facts like the date of the temple dedication, the square footage of the temple, the number of rooms, and the fact that this was the 71st operating temple, (as is the case here) then Deseret News is as reliable as any other major newspaper. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're using it to establish notability as well, though, which it can't do. Sure, it can cite facts and figures, but it's too associated with the subject to establish notability. pbp 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your statement about reliability. As for establishing notability, that seems to have been the core of your argument at the recent AfD. If you disagree with the close there you are free to AfD it again, but I don't recommend that since another editor recently added a citation to the El Paso Times that appears to make the argument moot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for working on Black_people_and_Mormonism. I appreciate both having an explanation of the priesthood in the article. It was also important to put the racism in the context of their times.

Another way to render http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_people_and_Mormonism&diff=510055607&oldid=510053915 is {{diff|Black_people_and_Mormonism|next|510053915|this edit}} which shows up as this edit

Thanks, I had no idea there was a diff template. I'll probably still copy and paste when I'm in a hurry, but this looks really nice. I wonder if it auto-corrects for links that break during page moves. I'll read up on it when I have the time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying the diff in the first place. It made it easy for folks to see what you were referring to. Only look at diff if you want to. It is documented here --Javaweb (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

OK, but the text is not cited. May be I'll change the text. Fauzan^{talk ✆ email ✉}

What's wrong with the text? It says "Allah means God in English." That doesn't sound controversial enough to need a citation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused it with another image, never mind. Fauzan^{talk ✆ email ✉} 05:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted a pararaph about Crimean Karaites here even though that article has no reliable source for it being islamic; why? Pass a Method talk 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edits because you had blanked sourced information without leaving a reason in your edit summary, and because you had created several new very short subsections, some no longer than a sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. I asked why you reinserted the unsourced paragraph about Crimean Karaites. Pass a Method talk 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinserting the paragraph was simply part of the revert. I really don't have any opinion on whether or not that paragraph should be in the article. If you would like it removed, I'd recommend doing so in a single-purpose edit to the article, with an edit summary along the lines of "Removing unsourced paragraph about the Crimean Karaites". That way, if somebody reverts you you can ask them on their talk page why they reinserted an unsourced paragraph, and they'll answer your question. I reverted your edits because you had blanked sourced information and converted a bulleted list into four extremely short (single sentence) subsections, when MOS:LAYOUT says: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that its okay to undo 100% of an edit if you disagree with 50% of it? Pass a Method talk 18:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that if somebody makes an edit that removes sourced material and restructures the article in a controversial way that goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and does all this with no other explanation than a vague edit summary of "headings", it's ok to hit the revert button. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But couldn't this mean that you're potentially undoing uncontroversial intermediate edits as well? Pass a Method talk 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's where the edit summaries come in handy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So you know WP:RV states if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit. A partial revert would apply there. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the guideline, and I do try to make partial reverts when possible. Looking at the diff of your edit, though, it's not immediately clear which parts are problematic and which parts aren't. Most of what I saw looked problematic, which is why I did a full revert. I understand you probably don't agree with me on this point, but that's ok. We can agree to disagree, and you can make another edit to the article removing the unsourced bullet point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I blanked the ahmadiyya sentences because it was going off-topic, mostly going into how they are considered heretical. I blanked the Twelver sentences because it was giving undue weight to Twelvers over oher sub-branches. Which of the two blanks do u disagree with? I dont feel strongly about the NOI or Yazidi blanks though and am willing to compromise on those. Pass a Method talk 06:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanking the Twelver sentence is fine by me. I don't like the Ahmadiyya blanking because the "finality of prophethood" is a big deal in Islam, and their departure from that is notable. The other two blanks, I don't really like, because it leaves those small branches as single links in the list. The descriptions there are helpful, especially for somebody who wants a one-sentence summary without having to click on the link to find it. Nation of Islam could mean anything, so it helps to explain on the page that it's a small black NRM founded recently in Detroit. (I realize the short explanations are not currently cited, but the information is fairly non-controversial and I'm sure citations could easily be found.)

Really, though, this discussion should be happening on the article talk page. Why don't you go make two new edits to the article...blank the Twelver sentence in the first edit, then blank whatever else you want to in the second edit. Then see if somebody cares enough to revert. If that happens, then you can start a discussion on the talk page to explain why the sentences/paragraphs should go. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, it's not a guideline; it's an essay. And if you don't already, you might want to know that Pass a Method has been making changes to that essay. No doubt to fit his personal beliefs about what should be done in the case of reverts. I reverted his heading mess.

And, Pass a Method, it is not up to anyone to sort out which of your edits are good. You shouldn't be making unconstructive edits in the first place. 109.123.82.246 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 109, for pointing that out. I had actually noticed Pass a Method's edits to WP:Reverting, but I wasn't going to say anything since he seems to have quoted it to me before making the changes. (If he had made the changes and then quoted the changed version I may have been annoyed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding finality of prophethood, thats controversial; because many Ahmadiyyas merely see Mirza as a mahdi, not a new prophet. There are also subsects within Ahmadiyya, hence again making the statement incorrect. What do you think about modifying the sentence along the lines of "many orthodox Muslims see Ahmadiyya as heretic." Another problem is that the paragraph devotes undue weight to how heretical they are. It also makes a sweeping claim "most muslims believe they are heretical". I know many mainstream scholars who don't. Pass a Method talk 20:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the evolution edits, i thought taxonomy and evolution are similar branches of biology so grouped them. I also thought they could be expanded upon later if they dont mention evolution in much detail. However, at Eel it talked about the origin of Eels. This is a passing/indirect reference to evolution so i thought of adding a header on evolution. But i dont feel strongly about it and im fine with leaving it out.

As for the IP, that guy started stalking me between January and April. He sort of stopped between May and June, but has been back since late July. I dont really mind the IP to be honest. He's making the wiki experience a bit more lively lol. Pass a Method talk 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My personal opinion is that if the section doesn't talk specifically about something in detail, that something generally shouldn't be in the name of the section. I think some of your edits were justified, but not all. That's interesting about the IP. I wonder if it's a user that got banned as a result of a conflict with you, or if it's some user logging out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for showing common sense and the ability to read, but I'm trying very hard not to create a Streisand effect, and your comment was too blunt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll be sending you a private email shortly. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anderson and an ip he used to evade editing restrictions were blocked by Reaper Eternal.--Calm As Midnight 22:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at that, as it had popped up on my watchlist. It's too bad he didn't stick to the anti-vandal work; he was getting pretty good at it. Thank you for the notification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar and for the kind words! You're right, it does get silly and frustrating at times, but that sort of comes with the territory here ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe your suspicions may be correct that Kerfuffler is using multiple accounts at the same time to edit. They showed up in this dispute discussion after 13 days, with no prior participation. I think this should be investigated, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks. :) --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that Kefuffler dived right into editing with an unusual amount of experience, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are abusing multiple accounts. Judging by their responses to my questions I would assume that they spent a lot of time editing as an IP editor, but didn't want to say so for fear of revealing their IP address (and by extension their geographical location). If you suspect there is abuse of multiple accounts the place to go is WP:SPI; however to do that you have to bring good evidence, including the other account(s) that you suspect are being used. As far as I know, nobody has connected Kefuffler to any other accounts, so there's no way a sockpuppet investigation is going to happen. My recommendation is to just assume the best unless you see strong evidence suggesting the contrary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :) It's just very interesting that so many editors have had the same suspicions. And if they edited as an IP, all they needed to do was acknowledge that (without having to reveal the IP number). --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I left you a message at Talk:iPhone about the infobox. Just in case you didn't see.Dplcrnj (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it, and replied ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! Can you give me a link on this particular discussion?--94.65.32.228 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a few years worth of discussions archived at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo. Basically the current state of the article (photo of grave at top, photo of person at bottom) is a long-standing compromise between believers (who would rather have no photo at all) and non-believers (who would put the photo at the top). It is a similar compromise to what is being implemented at the Muhammad article (calligraphic representation at top, images further down). The Bahá'u'lláh article hasn't undergone nearly as much controversy as the Muhammad article (Requests for Comment, Arbitration sanctions, etc.) and it would be nice if we could avoid that messiness by just using the compromise in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you mean that we don't put the image at the top so that we don't offend any Baha'ists visiting wikipedia? Seems fair to me.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More or less, yeah. I think one of the issues might not be so much "offending" Bahais, because anything we do on some subjects will offend someone, particularly like images relating to sex, but perhaps drive people away from using wikipedia. The former I could live with and don't necessarily myself see as being sufficient grounds for changing anything, the latter would be extremely counterproductive, particularly as it would also probably help drive away Bahais who might otherwise be willing to develop the content related to that subject. Granted, there may not be that many involved anyway, but, honestly, there aren't that many people of any kind involved in editing wikipedia anyway, so even potentially small numbers of possibly productive editors would be something to take into account, at least in my opinion. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In my view the goal is not to avoid offending anybody (that's impossible) but to avoid being needlessly offensive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1862 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk ·  · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. Juicy delicious strawberries! ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope I did it correctly. ----Cgersten 22:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. This particular one has 4 dashes, probably because you typed two dashes and then signed (the code I gave you included two dashes already), but you can put as many dashes as you like. Some people go so far as to use the longer "n" dashes "–" or "m" dashes "—". Anyway, glad you got it working. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have prodded Micah Baldwin. As the page creator is blocked, and you have recently edited the article, you seemed a logical person to notify instead. (I also removed some of the self-published material from the article). --Nouniquenames 06:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also notified User:Fountainflower, the user who did most of the writing in their first (and only) edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please review my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Propel Consult. tausif(talk) 10:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did a little copyediting and tagging in places that were unclear. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Yup, you got me in the right section. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing spam as you did here. However, as this is a registered account, there is more you can do here, such as considering a stern warning for the user. This has the additional advantage that in repeat instances, it can be easier and quicker to block the user. It also helps to check IP talk pages because they might also reveal that the incident is not isolated and that it might be time for a block. Keep up the good work! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the tip. I had noticed that it was the user's first edit so I instinctively went for Twinkle's welcome/problem user templates instead of the warn tab. I think you're right that a warning template would have been more appropriate in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account.

--190.232.175.153 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Please, don't reverts compulsory voting because is certain.

Please follow the rules and stop evading your block. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Has worked wonders on my watchlist now, what with no rollback and a better view of what's changed etc! I've been meaning to ask for help on that for a long time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome! ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You recently mentioned a gadget of yours on User:Dennis Brown's page. I imported it and have been using it heavily. The ability to see a user's contributions in two clicks is really helpful. Thanks for pointing it out!

Best,

GaramondLethe 16:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish I could call it my own, but in reality I ripped the code from someone else and hacked it so it would do what I wanted. If you have any suggestions for usefull tools that could be added do let me know. And thanks for the note, I'm glad you like it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how a link to a publisher could be any use to someone trying to follow up on a reference. That link won't help anyone with tracking down a reference, and it won't help anyone with assessing the reliability of the source (unless the publisher is a vanity press); a link to a large generalist publisher like Random House or Knopf really has no value in a reference. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC) And BTW, you reinstated the misspelling of Macmillan, which I had corrected. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Macmillan was unintentional, and I've fixed it now. For the links to publishers, I really don't have a strong preference, and as far as I know, there's no guideline. I know that I personally use the publisher links from time to time to get a feel for how big/reliable the publisher is, and sometimes just seeing the bluelink there helps me to know that they're big/notable enough to have an article. But as I said, I don't have a strong preference , and I could do the same on Google, so if you feel they should be removed go for it. I just wanted you make you aware of it, if you weren't already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You've had a bit more success in dealing with a certain editor than I have, so I was wondering if you might review some of the changes made to the above article on the 18th. They seem to have gone without much opposition to date, which strikes me as odd, because, unfortunately African Americans are not the only ones who get called "black" in the US. Although there are significantly fewer "blacks" of Polynesian, Southeast Asian, or indigenous Australian descent here, at least in my own experience here in St. Louis, which of the major metropolises of the US has a greater percentage of the population of African descent than any others, individuals of those differing heritages are less than fond of being grouped into the "black" category with people of African descent, and that dislike of being grouped together with people of African descent is one of the few things they consistently agree with people of African descent about. That being the case, I think it might make sense to change the language back to "African American" rather than "black American" in the article. I would however appreciate the input of someone who has a better history of dealing with the editor who made those changes than myself. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I may have found a way to sidestep the issue altogether by appealing to the manual of style [1]. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really know how to use this. Thanks for your help. Let me know what I can do to send the reference information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkatt (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, the important thing for you to do right now is to stop editing the article, because I can almost guarantee that if you remove the deletion tag again you're going to be blocked without warning, and you don't want that. I can help walk you through the process of identifying reliable sources, but I'm on my way out of town at the moment and don't have time right now. You might start by posting links to sources (webpages, news articles, books, etc.) on the article's discussion page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Katt and make your case there.--ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone we both know has made some recent changes to the above article, including moving it without any apparent discussion in advance. I was wondering what if anything you might be interested to say regarding the moving of the article and the other recent changes. I have also contacted the individual I think is probably our leading expert on NRMs regarding this, and hope to hear from him soon as well. I am less expert on this subject than I would like, but I do have concerns regarding at least the way the move was made, and the lack of discussion or apparent consideration of even the possibility of discussion of it. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

John, i made a redirect, not a page move. Please wake up from your sleep. Pass a Method talk 22:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm afraid I won't be able to participate in any discussions for the next week or so. I'm taking a short wiki-break so I can finish up a Masters thesis. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You had previously commented on the pending changes RfC that was placed on hold. Your comments have been transplanted to Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_3 and additional questions have been added. You may want to review your comments since some of the wording of the questions has changed slightly, and consider the new questions. Gigs (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you describe religions such as Wicca and Scientology as "tiny", how would you describe religions with roughly a thousand members (such as Aetherius Society or Church of Body Modification)? Microscopic religions? Also, how would u describe a religion with a few hundred members (such as Aumism)? An atomic religion? I would recommend you to broaden your terminology in the future with terms such as "medium-sized religion" or something similar. Pass a Method talk 23:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's always "teeny tiny", and I suppose "microscopic" works too. :-) Seriously though, I think it all boils down to context. In the context of neopagan religions, Wicca is large. In the context of UFO religions, Raëlism is huge. But if you put these in the context of world religions they really are tiny by comparison. In my mind, a religion with a hundred thousand adherents is tiny compared to a religion with a billion adherents, the same way 1 is tiny compared to 10,000. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it helps to remember that estimates on the number of religions in the world vary from 4200 up to 10,000. For instance Christophe Lemaitre is the fastest white 100 meter sprinter in history. But the fact he is not even in the top 30 100m times does not make him slow. Unfortunately though there is not that much academic content on medium-sized religions online.:-) Pass a Method talk 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who seems to be involved in a lot of the LDS material, I would appreciate any input you might have regarding what should be considered the "core" articles relating to Christianity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#What should be in the Core Topics work list?. Also, please check your e-mail. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look at it tomorrow. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

John, I'll probably have to put it off another day. I got caught up in the RfC (below) and used up all my Wiki-time for the day. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I've read the section a couple of times, and browsed list of core articles. I have no idea how you keep track of all this stuff. I came up with a couple that I think could be safely added/removed...I'll comment further on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll definitely have a look. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your considerate reply, and willingness to help reach a best result. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was fun. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up: I've followed up on your query on my talk page so that the discussion wouldn't get broken up. Please take a look when you can. :-) --CJ Withers (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1862 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

I think you may have misunderstood wp:lead. It states that the lede should give a summary of the content in the article. Most state articles have 12+ subsections but WP guidelines only allow 4 paragraphs. In that case you could fit 3 different topics into a single paragraph. Therefore you revert at Oregon is non-sensical. Pass a Method talk 18:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the Lead should summarize the article, but it should also do so without giving undue weight to any particular aspect. The fact that Oregon allows physician-assisted suicide is terribly specific for the Lead, and there are hundreds of other little facts of equal importance that could also be promoted to the Lead. Additionally the placement of the suicide fact was jarring. We were just reading about the population of Oregon and the ten most populated cities. All of the sudden we're talking about assisted suicide. Is this somehow linked to overpopulation? Did they pass the law because the cities were getting too populated? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at the list of WP:Featured articles, almost everyone of them talks about different topics in the same paragraph. If you want to maintain your position, you should post a note at the wp:lead talk page about whether it is permissible to mention different topics in the same paragraph. In fact, i'll doit myself right now, and i recommend you put the page on your watchlist for a reply. I think your observance of "topic-scpecificness" have reached extreme levels. Pass a Method talk 18:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can talk about different things in the same paragraph, but there should be some sort of link. The Haber–Bosch process was first demonstrated in 1909. Otherwise you will confuse readers. I don't think that WP:Lead is necessarily the best place to discuss this, but you can try if you want. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been following me to several articles recently. I think this might fall under WP:HOUNDING policy. If it continues, i will raise your username at an appropriate noticeboard. Pass a Method talk 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

When I see a user make a problematic edit that violates policy, I often check their contribution history to see if other edits are problematic. The more problems I find, the longer I will follow that user. I usually stop after a few days though, and I am careful to revert only edits that violate policy. I feel this is acceptable, especially since WP:HOUNDING states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." In your case, I was tracking your edits because you had recently been on a streak of inappropriately adding links to Raelianism to the Lead sections of multiple articles. Unfortunately I have to actually check the diffs because you frequently use vague and misleading edit summaries. When I checked the Oregon article (above) that is what I was looking for. What I found there was also problematic so I reverted, leaving a valid reason in the edit summary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, our conversations would be more productive if you quoted wikipedia guidelines/policies instead of merely saying "this is off-topic". If you can't quote a guidelines/policy, at the very least quote a respected essay. Otherwise your edit summaries and replies sound like mere opinion. Pass a Method talk 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I can't find anywhere recently where I've said something is "off-topic". (I checked by doing a search on this page, my last edit to your talk page, our recent conversation about Raelianism, and my last 500 edit summaries.) And I think I've been fairly clear in my edit summaries as well. In my last revert of you here I make reference to WP:LEAD and in my previous revert here I reference both Lead and WP:N. Are you asking that I actually provide links to the policies in my edit summaries?

It was not a direct quote, just an rough recollection about the Oregon revert. Never mind. Pass a Method talk 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As for links in edit summaries? That would be great! Pass a Method talk 19:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: I will agree to link directly to at least two policies or guidelines in my edit summary every time I revert you if you will agree to leave clear and detailed edit summaries that say exactly what you're doing. Instead of "add content" you could write "Add sentence to Lead paragraph about physician-assisted suicide." Instead of "wikilink" you could say "Adding clause about Raelian group to the Lead section. This group is a major supporter of topfreedom and should be mentioned here." Heck, if I could get you to agree to use clear edit summaries, I'd be more than happy to stop reverting you altogether. It would only cost you about 10 seconds per edit, and it will make you a much better Wikipedian. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons i use short edit summaries is because i tend to do a lot of stuff at the same time while editing; researching, double checking, sometimes at high pace. Writing long edit summaries might complicate the situation. But i will consider your suggestion. Pass a Method talk 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that i appreciate one of your qualities; you are a clear, straight-forward and concise communicator. Something that can't be said for some other editors.Pass a Method talk 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to consider this. And thank you for the compliment as well (though I don't think I entirely deserve it...I've certainly written my share of TLDRs.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You do deserve the compliment. Although we have strong disagreements about interpretation of due weight/notability, i always understand where you're coming from and you are always to the point in a discussion, (although not necessarily in edit summaries). Some people have real communication dificulties. Pass a Method talk 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I should probably admit that when we do have disagreements I am trying to be very careful because I often find myself in over my head and struggling to keep up with the vast knowledge you seem to have about a very wide range of topics. I don't think I'd ever be able to edit the range of articles that you do, and I can only imagine what your watchlist looks like :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One last thought on the short edit summaries that occurred to me after my last post. I've found that the process of writing an edit summary forces me to justify my edit, both to myself and to others. I believe that it helps prevent me from making bad or borderline edits. I think in your case it might help you avoid some of the blowback you get on your talk page from the occasional unfocused or "lukewarm" edits by preventing you from making those edits in the first place. So yes, it may complicate or slow down your editing process a bit, but I think that would be a good thing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, it has long been considered that it is more than reasonable to review the edit history of a problematic editor to see if the problematic edits have taken place elsehwere. Your own comments above regarding how that is, basically, what you have been doing is, I think, a solid indication that you have been acting according to policy and guidelines. If anything, I think this thread, and the frankly irrational, inflammatory, and not directly substantiated allegations made in the start of it, is itself probably the more clear violation of policies and/or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method needs to relax and enjoy editing more. I have seen his edits and in many cases they are VERY biased and not based on a desire to find truth, but simply a desire to push a point of view. People like that need a bit of "stalking" to ensure that we are getting reasonable edits from them. If you make reasonable edits, you shouldn't mind someone looking them over. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

About the summaries, i'll think about it and tell you when i have an answer Pass a Method talk 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. If there's anything you'd like me to add to the "deal" that would make it more appealing to you, do let me on that as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I answered the other questions on the article talk page. Pass a Method talk 09:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, which article? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My essay.Pass a Method talk 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Pass a Method, I'm contacting you here since you don't seem to like being contacted on your user page. This Raelian thing is getting a bit tiresome, especially since it is spread across so many different forums (Talk:Church, Talk:Religion, Talk:Same-sex marriage, Talk:Topfreedom, Jimbo's talk page, your essay's talk page, your talk page, my talk page, John Carter's talk page, WT:Notability (organizations and companies), WP:Help desk, to name a few). I think you and I should work together to frame a big RfC. We'll take it to Wikiproject:Religion and ask for input at other related Wikiprojects and noticeboards. If we're lucky, we can get a community consensus and then perhaps put this dispute to rest. What do you say? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I replied here Pass a Method talk 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The RfC would be generalized for all religions, though we could probably use Raelism as an example. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Please accept this much-coveted Barnstar of Diplomacy for adding more light than heat to the discussions on the Homophobia article talk page, and for being a shining example of bringing editors together in the spirit of collaboration. - MrX 00:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. It's an interesting page to work on, but it's been fun and educational. I've appreciated your comments on the talk page as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Noiratsi (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"I realize that the dynamics of this talk page aren't particularly conducive to discussion..." The dynamics, indeed. :) LadyofShalott 04:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)