Revision as of 16:39, 2 October 2013 editMilesMoney (talk | contribs)3,474 edits →Disconnect: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:59, 2 October 2013 edit undoAwilley (talk | contribs)Administrators14,151 edits →Disconnect: SureNext edit → | ||
Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
Adjwilley, I think we got off on the wrong foot and there's no way for us to recover from it. Once this sock thing blows over, I'd like us to agree to disagree and then politely avoid each other. As I said earlier, there are plenty of uninvolved editors who can get involved in my behavior if it proves to be a problem. ] (]) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | Adjwilley, I think we got off on the wrong foot and there's no way for us to recover from it. Once this sock thing blows over, I'd like us to agree to disagree and then politely avoid each other. As I said earlier, there are plenty of uninvolved editors who can get involved in my behavior if it proves to be a problem. ] (]) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Sure. I was just reading your last comment over at SPI, and I'd be happy to part ways. One thing where I think you may have misunderstood me was thinking that I had treated you poorly because I had butted heads with StillStanding. I was actually one of against User:Belchfire's harassment and I thought they had a great sense of humor and lots of spunk for an IP editor. I most certainly didn't agree with the way they were behaving, but to the end I was trying to convince them to get off their self-destructive path. If anything, me thinking that you were him held me back from taking any action against you. I fully intend to part ways after this, though, and have already begun to do so. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:59, 2 October 2013
Awilley — User talk — Contributions — Email |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Sandbox revert
Hi - I saw your request for rollback on the sandbox, and obliged, but I think you must have reverted just before I did. Odd that it shows up as a notification for my revert anyway. Normally I don't think it'll notify you about self reverts, or mentioning yourself. If you've got an alternative account you can experiment by switching between the two accounts; alternatively log out and do some reverts anonymously (if you don't mind making your IP public). — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I figured that was what happened. (I should have been a little more patient and waited a few more seconds before reverting myself.) You are correct that it doesn't notify about self-reverts or self-mentions. I was just trying to do it without the trouble of creating an alternate account. Thank you again for your help! ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Secular Islam Summit
Yo, are you still interested in this? I'd like to submit a joint edit request for whatever language we agree on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the reminder. I've had a lot going on, but I will get back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet, see you around then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just got this as I was finishing up a post on the talk page. I made a sample request basically using my old suggestion that you were mostly ok with, and before Jeff and Kwami objected to further tweaking. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet, see you around then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Micah True
Buenos Dias amigo. Yes, I received your message. My email address is . I hope to hear from you once again .Peace always , Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B11E:983B:0:0:0:103 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Your obnoxious edits
Do you reall have to edit in such an obnoxious way?
- Firstly you reinsert a blatant MOS violation with an image that takes up an entire screen.
- Secondly you reinsert original research by inserting a Quran quote without a secondary sourcee as is required.
- Thirdly you miss the fact you created duplicates accross two articles.
- Please focus!! Pass a Method talk 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I have responded to your concerns on the talk page. On a more personal note, if you don't want people to revert your edits, might I suggest that you use an edit summary that gives reasons for the changes? Your summary said "trim, c/e" but the diff showed unexplained blanking of a lot of sourced material. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Pass a Method, is there a reason you didn't provide more explanation of your intentions in the initial edit summary?
- @Adjwilley, is there a reason you didn't inquire at Pass a Method's talk page before reverting?
- @Pass a Method, your comments suggest more hostility and/or frustration toward Adjwilley than seems warranted. Can you take a calmer, more patient, more avuncular approach even when you disagree with his stance?
- @Both of you: There's been ongoing tension between the two of you ever since the dispute over how to give due weight to minority religions, and this incident here is a symptom of deepening personal mistrust. Please don't let it fester. Talk to each other and do your best to take seriously each other's concerns. alanyst 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Me: You're such a busybody. @Myself: Hush up! Just trying to help. @Me: They might not appreciate you butting in. @Myself: Eh, you could be right. alanyst 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thanks, Alanyst, your points are well taken. In the past I have tried to avoid posting on Pass a Methods talk page because I was under the impression that they didn't like being contacted there, but you're right that something along the lines of "would you mind providing a rationale for edit" would have been appropriate. When I performed the revert I knew Pass a Method would be notified through the new notifications system, and figured if there were good reasons for the blanking they could revert me with a better edit summary or start a talk page discussion BRD style. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Pass a Method, is there a way you would prefer to be contacted in situations like these? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can contact me on my talk page. The reason i did not elaborate my edit summary is because i posted in more detail on the talk page of the user who added the content. But i will try to remember being more detailed one paes we both frequent. Pass a Method talk 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, good to know, and I appreciate that. I'll get to the stuff in the article when I get a second. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed that Pass a Method deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Does Pass a Method want some changes or more references.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi User:Johnleeds1, I had noticed the removals as well, though I've been fairly busy the last few days. The most important thing you can do right now is to go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_request and give an explanation for your edits, since Pass a Method is asking to have you blocked from editing. (Calm discussion is a good thing there, and you should support anything you say with a link to a source.) After that I suggest opening a thread on the Islam talk page, where I will participate to a limited extent. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed that Pass a Method deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Does Pass a Method want some changes or more references.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, good to know, and I appreciate that. I'll get to the stuff in the article when I get a second. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can contact me on my talk page. The reason i did not elaborate my edit summary is because i posted in more detail on the talk page of the user who added the content. But i will try to remember being more detailed one paes we both frequent. Pass a Method talk 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I have responded to your concerns on the talk page. On a more personal note, if you don't want people to revert your edits, might I suggest that you use an edit summary that gives reasons for the changes? Your summary said "trim, c/e" but the diff showed unexplained blanking of a lot of sourced material. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
First Vision article
Just wanted to thank you for your brief cleanup on the First Vision page! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination DriveWikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC
File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG
Given our previous interactions, I would be interested in your thoughts about what is being discussed at wp:Non-free content review#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll have a look today after work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
WP Religion in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Religion for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nomination for adminship
Alanyst would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Alanyst to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. |
23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Your RFA
I really hope that your RFA goes very well, Because, You've given me some great advice. In my opinion, You'd make a Great Administrator.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Anderson. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I , Unfortunately, probably can't vote in your RFA due to my probation. I've asked an admin if they can vote for me.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, Anderson. I really appreciate the thought, but I think it's more important that you don't push the boundaries of your restrictions at the moment. Thank you, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Two words: damn it. Although I can understand an admin with clearly stated religious beliefs not wanting to perform admin functions in the religion field, we have few other admins who feel they know enough to perform admin functions in that field. Anyway, look forward to seeing you perform functions anyway. Also, I think there is a chance in the next week or so, say, that ArbCom might be requested to involve itself in a religion related case, and I very much hope that we might be able to get a few senior editors without religious "biases" to draft some guidelines for religion. More or less like my stalled proposal, which was honestly written with ArbCom making such a proposal in mind. There are a lot of matters regarding the intersection of religious, scientific/historical, and popular opinions relating to religion out there that need some sort of guidelines for how to deal with them. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be around, for sure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind message on my talk page. You really do deserve the adminship, but I must say...wow, can't remember the last admin with a 91 percent support at RFA (Although..I don't pay that much attention).--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks...It ain't over yet though :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't let it worry you, You've got enough support From the community to see you through the last few days of it, And i'm 100% sure by the end of it, The closing Bureaucrat will Sysop you with a Done.Anderson I'm Willing To Help 20:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks...It ain't over yet though :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Two words: damn it. Although I can understand an admin with clearly stated religious beliefs not wanting to perform admin functions in the religion field, we have few other admins who feel they know enough to perform admin functions in that field. Anyway, look forward to seeing you perform functions anyway. Also, I think there is a chance in the next week or so, say, that ArbCom might be requested to involve itself in a religion related case, and I very much hope that we might be able to get a few senior editors without religious "biases" to draft some guidelines for religion. More or less like my stalled proposal, which was honestly written with ArbCom making such a proposal in mind. There are a lot of matters regarding the intersection of religious, scientific/historical, and popular opinions relating to religion out there that need some sort of guidelines for how to deal with them. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, Anderson. I really appreciate the thought, but I think it's more important that you don't push the boundaries of your restrictions at the moment. Thank you, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I , Unfortunately, probably can't vote in your RFA due to my probation. I've asked an admin if they can vote for me.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to jump the gun (in the same manner as pundits on Election Night) and congratulate you on being approved as an administrator! (look at it this way - the odds of 30+ people suddenly appearing to cast "no" votes in the next day is nil) Collect (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Did some one order one of these ? Congrats, :P Mlpearc (powwow) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of this one :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ahh, good choice, the starter kit. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of this one :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats Adj :) Dusti 04:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your successful RFA!--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Friendly airline pilot
LOL. "Ladies and gentlemen, looks like we're past that bit of turbulent editing and things have smoothed out. If you'll look out your window you'll see a brand-new Good Article; what a sight! We'll be landing this discussion shortly; please be sure to return your Visual Editor to its upright, locked position and double-check your watchlists. On behalf of Misplaced Pages, thank you for editing, and have a great day." alanyst 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did just laugh out loud...I wish I were clever enough to come up with something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK-Good Article Request for Comment
Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
You are now an administrator
Congratulations on your successful RFA (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley). I've done the needful and you should now see some new buttons. Best of luck in your new role, –xeno 13:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see them. I'll start heading over to the new admin school now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just here to congratulate you - not because the mop's a prize, but because of the hard work you've done, without editcountitis, that led to this outcome. Thanks for your willingness to distract yourself with a bit... more work. -- Scray (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You will be an excellent admin and I'm looking forward to bugging you with requests to use your mop. Bahooka (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats friend, glad to see the community (as a whole) was willing to put simple things to the side and see the wisdom in granting you access to the tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck.Tazerdadog (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me as well. You might want to check out my monobook.js, there are some useful scripts there with things like dropdown menus for block rationales. ϢereSpielChequers 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you all. Dennis, thanks for all the good advice you've given me in the past; I hope you don't mind if I pester you from time to time in the future. Bahooka, always good seeing you around. Scray, thank you for your comments at the RfA; ditto to SpielChequers & Tazerdadog. @SpielChequers, thanks for the tip: I will indeed cheque it out. (You are also invited to check out my common.js page, where there might be some gadgets that interest you as well...try the Adjwilley/cactions.js for two new menus with lots of functions...and if I'm missing any let me know.) Also, is there a way to get rid of the four new "batch" tabs or putting them in a submenu somewhere? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ask away. Even though I'm scarce, I will make the time to help in any way I can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you all. Dennis, thanks for all the good advice you've given me in the past; I hope you don't mind if I pester you from time to time in the future. Bahooka, always good seeing you around. Scray, thank you for your comments at the RfA; ditto to SpielChequers & Tazerdadog. @SpielChequers, thanks for the tip: I will indeed cheque it out. (You are also invited to check out my common.js page, where there might be some gadgets that interest you as well...try the Adjwilley/cactions.js for two new menus with lots of functions...and if I'm missing any let me know.) Also, is there a way to get rid of the four new "batch" tabs or putting them in a submenu somewhere? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats!--v/r - TP 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! (replied) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations, I hope youre not mad at me for the little mishap I caused, feel free to block me ;) Prabash.Akmeemana 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ha ha, not likely. Actually I really appreciated it when you changed your vote, so thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just here to say congratulations on your successful RfA! Looks like you will be a great new admin. Matty.007 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Now get to work! I see some dirt over there. :) --BDD (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good luck with the tools cyrfaw (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and sympathies
Congratulations on surviving a misdirected canvassing campaign, and thanks for carrying the bucket and mop and blocking a sockpuppet. And I don't even like the user whom the sockpuppet was attacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, always good to see someone with a degree in chemistry. I went from that into information technology because there were too many explosions in the chemistry lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Hey, Willey. Many many congratulation to you for a successful RfA. You are a nice user and got the mop. Hope you enjoy mopping. Cheers and happy editing. Oops, don't forget to drink the beer. Pratyya 08:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you Pratyya Ghosh, the thought is much appreciated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations
from me too :) Sorry to be late to the party - just got home from driving nearly 1,000 miles over the last 24 hours. Maybe in time to share that beer - certainly need one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kudpung. Goodness, it sounds like you need a rest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Congrats
It is good to see another admin who at least knows something about the religion field. Also, FWIW, I think Dougweller might have raised similar concerns regarding inappropriate edit summaries like this one. If true, that might make two people who have raised a concern regarding the same type of conduct, which if confirmed would be sufficient basis to start an RfC/U. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, John, I'm out of town/extremely busy this week, but will get back to you later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Congrats and Good luck!!!
For an awesome future of adminship in Misplaced Pages | |
Congratulations! I gladly voted for your and I'm sure you'll be a great admin! Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
Re setting up and editing of Damon Matthew Wise page
We were told that setting up of bio required Sections
"This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. (August 2013) "
This setting of sections will allow us eventually to span, I guess ... description as per page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
STiki emergency
Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Misplaced Pages:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
Joseph Smith - FAC
Hello Adjwilley,
I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.
Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
GA reassessment
Chelsea Manning, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; I probably won't be commenting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Manning
FYI, there was an attempt at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1 to remove the GA listing, because of the title and pronoun dispute. Someone closed it, but it may be opened again in case you want to watchlist it. I fear for the page once protection is lifted. :) SlimVirgin 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got the notification above, but declined to comment after reading the page. I have to say there's something that bugs me about the whole move thing, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. The pronouns are one thing, but would we have moved it if Manning had wanted to be known as "Chris" instead of "Chelsea"? Anyway, I'll put it on my watchlist, but I probably won't participate much in the discussions unless there's a serious attempt to "punish" the article. At the moment I feel there are enough voices without my two cents, and I had taken the Chelsea page off my watchlist because it was pushing everything else off. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the difference between Chris and Chelsea is that, if we were to ignore a Chris name change, there would be no subtext, but ignoring a change to Chelsea says: "You say you're a woman; we say you're not." So there's an element of rudeness to it, apart from anything else (in my view). At this point, I'm more concerned about watching the article fall apart. All that time spent dotting the i's and crossing the t's – everyone else is focused on the title, while I'm screaming, "Don't change the date formats!" :) SlimVirgin 00:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Weird edit summary
This edit summary makes no sense. Did you mean "largest" when you said latest?Pass a Method talk 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, that was supposed to be "largest". Sorry for the confusion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yasin al-Qadi
Hello Adjwilley and thank you for your side note. Did I take it so far? I was trying to make the page fair and balanced. I was reading about the guy and found that his biography is not well balanced. people should not be judged based on media reports and things should not be taken out of contexts. I went through the courts judgments and quoted exactly the findings not authors opinion. Even i put the facts in chronological order. There are things that are mentioned on the page that are very bizarre and should not be not a reputable source as wikipedia. The whole thing about FAA involvement in September 11 and stating it as a fact is like conspiracy theory.
I appreciate your feedback, and i'm looking forward for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel2002 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Samuel2002: Thanks for your response. Don't get me wrong, I think you were taking it in the right direction, but I disagree with the blanking, particularly when it's sourced material being blanked. For instance, in this edit, instead of completely removing the part saying that he was listed as a terrorist, I would have split the first sentence into two parts: the first saying who he is, the second saying what he is suspected of. Also, in edits like this I highly recommend using an edit summary, to let people know what you're doing. (Something along the lines of "corbettreport.com is not a reliable source for these kinds of allegations" would be great!) And when you look at all the edits together it gives the impression that the article is being scrubbed, which is why I left the note. That said, I'm not terribly familiar with the subject myself, and I don't remember if I've ever edited the article before, so I could be wrong... ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Advice on Talk Page
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lloyd_Banks
Just wanted your advice on my attempt to close out one of the questions pending a very old edit and its reason for why it was done. To save you skipping off and looking at the page i will try sum it up: A user enquired why the Infobox in the Artists Label section had G-Unit Removed and replaced with EMI. Rather than the situation of displaying both, present and past as it is now. Since the question has been pending a few years, and that receiving an answer on precisely the reason behind that edit being IMO a pain to find the exact edit in question and then, the reasoning of why the change was made as it was is not likely to present in the Edit Summary, and there being no interest from the editor or anyone else with an opinion present.
So, I replied to the user with the same as above re:edit summary and that the edit was made in good faith and that the Infobox has since been modified to represent both past and present label signins. Therefore issue closed out, and can ideally go to archive, i see no point on leaving such minor curiosity only issues open that in answering really wont advance wikipedia or address any outstanding or new case to be addressed by the community.
Yes... this is long winded, I just want some feedback on my behaviour on the issue and the soundness of my reasoning. Cause to be honest, I am sure that I have not read every piece of guidance material for editors so I could be missing something and screwing up badly... which also means I am wasting your time if that is the case :))
Thank you for your time, and forgive my brain dump.. I hope my need is apparent. Cheers Jcislowski (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Jcislowski: It looks good to me. I took the liberty of adding {{archive}} templates around the thread, to show that the issue is resolved and the discussion is closed. (Let me know if I screwed up on the rationale.) If I were more tech-savvy I would set up the page so that a bot would automatically archive threads older than a few months, but I'm not terribly confident that I'd do it right. I think it's fine though for now. Thanks for the inquiry, and let me know if you have any more questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Adjwilley: Thank you again, just want to make sure I not to cavalier with this sort of thing. I am intending on a push to clear up a pile of unresolved issues like that one. They just noise, if you got some pages or a group of topics that might need some attention let me know. I got time to give back some at the moment. Cheers mate Jcislowski (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- No problem at all..I think your actions were just fine..a good example of being WP:Bold :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Adjwilley: Thank you again, just want to make sure I not to cavalier with this sort of thing. I am intending on a push to clear up a pile of unresolved issues like that one. They just noise, if you got some pages or a group of topics that might need some attention let me know. I got time to give back some at the moment. Cheers mate Jcislowski (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
List of new religious movements
Hello! I am writing to you as you are an editor who has participated in the disccussion at List of new religious movements. There is a related discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard which primarily consists of the same editors and many of the same discussion topics as the RFC. In an effort to forward the discussion to a resolution, I am inviting you to participate in the RSN thread as well. Thank you in advance for considering it. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, could you advise me on whether it would now be appropriate to simply remove the Landmark/est entry from this List? There have been no more comments on the RfC for a couple of weeks now, and little if any response to my notice on the Peer Review page and other editors' requests on the NPOV nocieboard and elsewhere. The consensus seems firmly that the case for listing there is extremely weak - even more so now that the term 'philosophical group' has been removed from the definition (both at the intro to this list, and the main New religious movements aricle), so far without dispute. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a logical next step to me. The consensus does seem to support that. If you had any concerns or if someone reverts you, you could always ask for an "official" close by requesting at WP:AN. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- My removal was immediately reverted, and also the same editor has re-instated the terms "philoshophical" and "ethical" into the definition of NRM in the lead, as well as adding some contentious commentry which I can't see is justified by anything in the literature. I don't really want to get into an edit war over either of these points. I have put up a request for closure at WP:ANRFC but so far no response. Any suggestions? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a logical next step to me. The consensus does seem to support that. If you had any concerns or if someone reverts you, you could always ask for an "official" close by requesting at WP:AN. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Joseph Smith Question
While I haven't gotten involved in the issues you have been disusing on the Joseph Smith page, I think I may have an answer to at least the question "Why is this such a big deal?". I have posted my comments here, because they don't really related to the issue being discussed. It is just my own personal observation regarding the Joseph Smith page. Whenever I go to the Joseph Smith page, I see four type of editors:
- Some zealot Mormons, who want to push a pro-Mormon POV. I admit it happens. I have distant family who would be those Mormons if they edited Misplaced Pages. Most the time it is obvious and is immediately reverted.
- Editor who wish to push an anti-Mormon POV, so much so then end up in the newspaper. These tend to be the more vocal, sneaky and annoying. They push and push until they ether get sanctions, or you give up and there POV issues end up on the page for good.
- Those who are trying to keep the middle NPOV balance in one this page.
- Those, like myself, who have given up and avoid editing this page as much as possible. I avoid editing this page (Joseph Smith) because every edit created a firestorm. This is the reason it is so heavily referenced.
So the answer to your question is, it's the nature of the page. It sucks that the administrators don't do more about it. I have never seen a page with so many edit wars that isn't at least semi-protected, but it isn't.--ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is in regards to behavior related to User:Canstusdis not yours, but you were involved with.--ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- When I went to notify User:Canstusdis I noticed that you had already started an "Incidents" noticeboard page, here on this issue. So the one I made is redundant. I have moved my comments to That page. My apologies.--ARTEST4ECHO (/contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Adjwilley
We spent a year going through the Muawiya I article and collecting the information and going through hundreds of books. The Muawiya I article is related to the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" articles. We spent a lot of time on it. I put some of the background information on the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" article but Zabranos removed it. I don't have the time to edit war and don't want to edit war. I have a busy work schedule and already spend a lot of time in the evenings going through hundreds of books collecting information. Adjwilley if you have some time, can you please review every things. Adjwilley, since you are the admin, I don't mind what decision you make or what changes you make. We just need to make sure that the articles are accurate, neutral and not offensive to anyone. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- You might be interested to know that User:Zabranos was blocked today for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) It looks like they were blocked for a week, so things should calm down a bit on that front. I'll have a look at the articles tomorrow, though I'll warn you, this isn't my area of expertise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Adjwilley thanks for getting back to me. Also thanks for turning the Islam scholars diagram into a proper template. Thanks--Johnleeds1 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
There's been a request for a few extra eyes on the article's talk page, and, with your new status as an admin, I figured I know have the right to pester you with more requests like this. You can also probably expect more requests like this in the future, actually. Ain't you happy you ran? ;) John Carter (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist now: I'll have a look tomorrow when I get more than a few minutes :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Holy cow, you can sometimes tell something is wrong by counting the adjectives and citations in the 1st sentence of the Lead: "..is a secretive, renunciate, Millenarian new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." What?? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the background to why is that the Brahma Kumaris editors have been attempting to whitewash the topic as much as possible over the years and create much conflict over it. Consequently it has becoming very well referenced if a little misshapen in place. However, once you start to become acquainted with the topic, you'll find that it is actually highly accurate.
- In essence, what they are seeking to do is make it more vague and fall inline with their religion's PR. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to bring this here but one can see the discussions on the talk page including archives between neutral editors, BK editors and Januarythe18th to see who is creating conflict, using deceptive edit summaries, act against consensus, often insulting other editors and cherry picking from references to skew the article. In my view a well referenced topic is not necessarily encyclopedic! Changeisconstant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- In essence, what they are seeking to do is make it more vague and fall inline with their religion's PR. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am genuinely disappointed, but not exactly surprised, that you chose to bring your noise here. There is enough of it on the talk page. It would be better if you could bring some benefit to the Misplaced Pages as a whole.
- ADJ, if you are taking an interest in the Brahma Kumaris, I'd like to discuss with you getting up to speed on the references and resources available about them, their beliefs and practises. Which have you read so far? Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Renunciate
Re: renunciate, the talk page is a little busy and too difficult to follow right now, so I'll answer you here.
Actually, I answered it by starting a separate section on Asceticism and renunciation. Largely, it's well referenced and stating the obvious when you look at the religion's lifestyle. It matches any other renunciate order. They renounce sex, renounce relationships, renounce meat, renounce alcohol, renounce stay in bed after 4am in the morning, have few to no personal belongings, and so on. It's a full on monastic lifestyle without the monastery.
What references do you have to suggest and support they are not a renunciate order?
A more subtle point arises though, which has been discussed before, and that is, "how does one delineate who is a Brahma Kumari and who is not?" or who is the article about. The Brahma Kumaris live like nuns. It is a renunciate order even if their supporters may not to. However, we have to define the BKs by the BK, not their supporters who might conduct themselves in any manner.
If we look at a recent Times of India article, a representative states that individuals only become BK members after 6 years association , therefore I think we have to apply the terminology strictly to apply only to "members" rather than just anyone who might come along. Does that help?
I moved secretive down but it should also remain as a key factor given all the references supporting it. --Januarythe18th (talk)
Rothbard Protection
Hello Adjwilley. I know you are familiar with some of the background on this article, having been the closing Admin on an edit-warring ANI concerning user Srich several days ago. In light of the continuation and escalation of that behavior recently, I'd like to ask you to extend the page protection for a longer period, perhaps a week or ten days, in order to ensure that further discussion proceeds to acknowledged consensus before the EW has a chance to resume. Needless to say, if consensus is reached prior to that time the protection could be reviewed and lifted sooner. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow response, I've been pretty busy today. I got your note (thank you) but I was reluctant to extend the protection for now, as that might be seen as an endorsement of the current version. You are correct that I have been watching this case (Srich, MilesMoney, Binksternet, and more recently, yourself) for several days now, and across a couple of articles, and I will continue to keep an eye on the article. Hopefully people will exercise a little more restraint this time around, but if not I can protect it again for longer. I don't want to pull out the block hammer, but that's not entirely out of the question either, unfortunately. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your keeping an eye on things. Srich has now begun similar EW behavior at the Mises Institute article and frankly I am disappointed to see him respond this way to your administrative restraint at the recent 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, I am going to move back another step from these articles so thanks and adios. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed. I think it would be healthy if everybody took a step back. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Who are these SpokAnCap and Deathye people? They seem to know you, and are obviously not new. Think I should I block 'em? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. I have no idea -- never saw these names before. There's just a huge disconnect on these articles between those of us who have taken an academic/research interest in some of the issues and on the other hand the partisans who see the article content as some kind of partisan struggle or political debate. It's very discouraging. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I happened to notice your interventions on Rothbard when took a peek today and then this thread. I gave up editing/unwatched the articles in question a while back because of Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with the POV pushing of editors Specifico and Steeletrap. At Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note in my contribution I quote them revealing their truly negative and hostile opinions on these individuals which explains why their "academic" entries are always the dirtiest and most critical things they can find. I quit in part because there was a constant fight to keep in old and new neutral and factual WP:RS secondary source material that might actually make the subjects of articles look credible. (Trying to keep such material in is what they consider partisan POV pushing!) So please do not buy this "academic neutrality" line. Unfortunately, it's that kind of bad faith editing that drives some people to sock puppetry. User:Carolmooredc 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I realize that it is a very difficult situation to be in, and I've been in situations like that myself. As an administrator my influence is a bit limited in that I can't take a position in the dispute itself. Basically my job is to make sure that people are following the rules and do my best to keep a level playing field. I can protect the article and block edit warriors and socks, but I'm not allowed to say whose position is right or wrong. So in a way, I will be following your request of not buying the "academic neutrality" line, but I can't take the opposing stance either. I understand your discouragement, but unfortunately I'm not sure what can be done without completely changing the system. (This is in essence what I see as one of the most pressing problems facing Misplaced Pages.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I happened to notice your interventions on Rothbard when took a peek today and then this thread. I gave up editing/unwatched the articles in question a while back because of Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with the POV pushing of editors Specifico and Steeletrap. At Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note in my contribution I quote them revealing their truly negative and hostile opinions on these individuals which explains why their "academic" entries are always the dirtiest and most critical things they can find. I quit in part because there was a constant fight to keep in old and new neutral and factual WP:RS secondary source material that might actually make the subjects of articles look credible. (Trying to keep such material in is what they consider partisan POV pushing!) So please do not buy this "academic neutrality" line. Unfortunately, it's that kind of bad faith editing that drives some people to sock puppetry. User:Carolmooredc 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. I have no idea -- never saw these names before. There's just a huge disconnect on these articles between those of us who have taken an academic/research interest in some of the issues and on the other hand the partisans who see the article content as some kind of partisan struggle or political debate. It's very discouraging. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Who are these SpokAnCap and Deathye people? They seem to know you, and are obviously not new. Think I should I block 'em? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed. I think it would be healthy if everybody took a step back. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your keeping an eye on things. Srich has now begun similar EW behavior at the Mises Institute article and frankly I am disappointed to see him respond this way to your administrative restraint at the recent 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, I am going to move back another step from these articles so thanks and adios. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Adjwilley. Apparently the edit-warring behavior is continuing at Rothbard. I just had a look at the article and noticed that most of the images have again been removed, despite the ongoing talk page thread. Perhaps you could have a look. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination DriveWikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Disconnect
Adjwilley, I think we got off on the wrong foot and there's no way for us to recover from it. Once this sock thing blows over, I'd like us to agree to disagree and then politely avoid each other. As I said earlier, there are plenty of uninvolved editors who can get involved in my behavior if it proves to be a problem. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I was just reading your last comment over at SPI, and I'd be happy to part ways. One thing where I think you may have misunderstood me was thinking that I had treated you poorly because I had butted heads with StillStanding. I was actually one of their earliest defenders against User:Belchfire's harassment and I thought they had a great sense of humor and lots of spunk for an IP editor. I most certainly didn't agree with the way they were behaving, but to the end I was trying to convince them to get off their self-destructive path. If anything, me thinking that you were him held me back from taking any action against you. I fully intend to part ways after this, though, and have already begun to do so. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)