User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia, Alanscottwalker! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found two new images of the rail lines and land that became Millennium Park and would like to discuss which images to include in the article's Background section - please comment at Talk:Millennium_Park#Images_in_the_Background_section. Thanks,Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I'd talk to you on this one as you have shown an interest in the Michigan Avenue Bridge article. For other bridges on the Chicago river, the official name is really an honorary title that is mostly ignored (witness the Irv Kupcinet Bridgeor the Marshall Suloway Bridge). My feeling is that the same will be true for the Michigan Avenue Bridge, and that we should continue to call it as such, whilst acknowledging the official name in a similar way as we do in the other articles. What do you think? —Jeremy (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts? We should go by whatever its official name is and I think a note for honorary title in the info box would be nice, and also a text section on honorary title and its naming history, if someone has that info. (If, we could transfer this discussion somehow to the article discussion page that seems to also make sense). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought, as I now understand you are saying the official title is the honorary title. I have no problem with a convention that organizes these bridges by geographic title, I think that is common usage in Chicago, (ie by street name). Somehow we should document official title. Perhaps, in addition to above suggestions, in the first or second sentence of the article.Alanscottwalker(talk) 13:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should perhaps have redirect pages for honorary titles to these articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the official title will be DuSable Bridge, but I'm fairly sure that in reality that will be treated as an honorary title. Wikipedia guidelines are to use the common name, but there are notable exceptions to this such as Willis Tower (arguably). I suggest that the opening line be "Michigan Avenue Bridge (officially DuSable Bridge) is a…" for now, at least until it becomes clear that the DuSable name is being routinely used by reliable sources. (copying discussion over to the article talk) —Jeremy(talk) 13:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you have read the article on Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. As detailed in the article, the first time that Point du Sable appears in the historical record is in the 1770s—there is nothing known of his life before that. Juliette Kinzie stated in her autobiography that he was from Haiti, but everything else that she wrote about him is known to be wrong, so there is no reason to believe that she is correct about that; she also gives no more details of his early life or parentage. There is not a single document produced in Point du Sable's lifetime that states that he was from Haiti. The story that his father was a pirate was introduced in a 1953 book written by Shirley Graham—you can read this book at archive.org here: [1]—Graham clearly states that much of her book is fictional, so my statement that the version of Point du Sable's early life that you gave in the Michigan Avenue Bridge article is fictional is not just a claim by historians, it is a claim by the person who actually wrote it. Please undo your revert of my edits.—Jeremy (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article several times and, in that article it does not explain why Kinzie would lie about Haiti. Regardless, I deleted the sentence before I saw your above comment. I think the separate sections should remain for greater clarity and ease of use.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Have to sign off now. Talk to you later.[reply]

I don't think that she was lying, and that is not what Quaife says either. As far as I can tell she never met Point du Sable, though her father-in-law (John Kinzie) may have done, and he may have been the source of her information. My own theory is the John Kinzie just assumed Point du Sable to be Haitian because he was a French-speaker of African ancestry. Regardless, she also states that Point du Sable came to Chicago in 1796—which we know to be incorrect because we have the journal of Hugh Heward who visited him here in 1790—and she states that he died in Peoria, which we also know to be wrong because there are a number of records showing him living in St. Charles, Missouri for about the final decade of his life, and there is a record of his death there. Was she purposely lying about these things?—I think it unlikely, she was probably just misinformed.—Jeremy (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that anyone like John Kinzie coming into Illinois country would be unfamiliar with French Canadians or French Haitains and would probably know where each were. San Domingue's gens de colour (sons of pirates and slaves) were known throughout the French Empire and the word Mulatto, which we have record du Sable used about himself, comes from there. As for the other charges against Julia: whether its 1796 or 1786 seems rather immaterial to her -- or Peoria or a similar River town further south -- unless she has some reason to mislead.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Juliette Kinzie's book is a valuable source, it has a clear ulterior motive that many historians have commented on—she wished to present John Kinzie as the founder of Chicago. To that end there are a number of errors or contracdictions. For instance, she states that John Kinzie was the only white man other than the garrison at the fort living in Chicago from 1804 to 1824, but then states that Antoine Ouilmette was living in Chicago in 1812 (we also know of at least four white families unrelated to the fort who were living in Chicago before Kinzie arrived because they were documented by Captain Whistler). Juliette Kinzie clearly attempts to portray Point du Sable as someone unworthy of being the 'founder of Chicago', she even pokes fun at him, suggesting that he tried to con the Indians into making him their chief and left in disgust when they refused (for which there is no evidence). The story of Point du Sable is not so much the story of a person as it is the story of what people have made that person be—to 19th century white Chicagoans he was barely more than a savage; just an embarrassing footnote in the history of Chicago, whereas in the 20th century he became something of a folk hero, particularly to some members of the African-American community in Chicago. Because of the lack of actual facts about his life, both groups have invented myths about him that have often been reported as facts. I spent a great deal of time trying to untangle these so that the Wikipedia article on him could present the known facts separately from the myths and theories; I think that I have done an OK job of this, though in some cases it is hard to be sure—why, for instance, should we believe Kinzie when she says that Point du Sable was from Haiti over Mason who states with seemingly great authority that he was from Lexington, Kentuky? What motive does either have to lie? I have tried therefore to rely more with Quaife, Meeham and Swenson, who at least make it clear when there is uncertainty and when they are speculating; and where possible I have also found and linked to the original documents so that the reader can examine them for themselves. —Jeremy (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work but as this is a collaborative effort among editors there are bound to be differences, discussions and changes, hopefully improvements along the way. It is helpful, that you now admit that you believe Mrs. Kinzie to be lying (misleading) about somethings and with a motive to lie. It is helpful also that you have laid bear your editorial bias (no doubt well founded) about the history of the biography of Dusable in Chicago. Just be careful that your own narrative conclusions about 18th century people or 20th century African Americans don't color the factual retelling. Our job is not to 'explode myths,' which is a biased pursuit in search of disputable conclusions. Our job is to retell that history as unbiased, as possible. I believe you have done that for the most part but that does not mean improvement cannot be made. If there is a dispute between Kinzie and Mason, wikipedia editors should not referee it, we should note it. That's our job, not to decide what is more reasonable to us.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly state above, I don't think that Kinzie was lying. I don't think that she thought that Point du Sable was that important. She barely wrote a paragraph about him, and what she did write is basically just background for her introduction of John Kinzie to the narrative. My opinions of Juliette Kinzie's book are also irrelevant as I believe that I have written about it in a neutral manner: I state that there is no known record of Point du Sable's life prior to the 1770s, unless you have new information here I believe that this statement is accurate; I state that Kinzie said that he came from Haiti, which is also accurate; I state that most people accept Haiti as his bithplace, which I think to be also accurate; I then say that a notable writer, Quaife, disagreed with Kinzie, which is true. In the quote I use from Quaife he might come across as being overly harsh on Kinzie, but what he wrote is basically true—Kinzie presented four facts about Point du Sable, two of these are demonstrably wrong ("largely fictitious"), and the other two are not backed up by any other sources ("wholly unauthenticated"). I think that as I wrote it I actually give Quaife's own theory less credence than Kinzie's.

It is impossible for anyone to write in a truly unbiased manner, but I believe that everything that I have written about Point du Sable complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I have not tried to explode any myths, in fact I thought long and hard about what to call the 'theories and myths' section—but I don't think that I provide anything in this section that has not been published elsewhere. Most of what I am calling 'myths' (for want of a better word) in that section comes from Shirley Graham's book, a book that I enjoyed reading but which is clearly, and by the author's own admission, a fictional account of Point du Sable's life.—Jeremy(talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page

This user helped promote Millennium Park to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I commend you on your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Michigan Avenue Bridge to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the National Register of Historic Places listings in Central Chicago. I've put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/full illus list with thanks to you. It is the 6th largest fully illustrated list. Finish all Chicago and it will be the 2nd largest FI list. Bravo! Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a source to the content that you added to Near South Side, Chicago. I am going to hide it. When you have a source to add unhide it and add the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday I made this edit deleted "most populous state capital" - true, but trivial at Phoenix, Arizona, and just now saw your recent change this "fact" is useless trivia but although I left it in, I do not know what was meant by "major coast" (POV) so I changed it to 'ocean' to Chicago, and thought you might enjoy the coincidence (in the happy but nearly hopeless pursuit of pruning trivia). Jd2718 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at User talk:Verygentle1969 and at Talk:Chicago. Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia bit about how far Chicago is from the nearest "major coast" looks like OR and synthesis to me. The fact is that older large cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc., wouldn't be the size they are, or might not even exist, if the Great Lakes didn't exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Standing Lincoln a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates aredirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them atWikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Thanks for your efforts at the above article. Well done. My wife is a docent there and I feel a kinship to the bldg...and the article.Buster Seven Talk 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even changing "never" to "do not" gets reverted on m:DICK Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance in getting this one over the hump.

This user helped promote Wolf Point, Chicago to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Jean Baptiste Point du Sable article.

This user helped promote Jean Baptiste Point du Sable to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi there. love the photos, used one in The Alarm (Boyle). you should consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art. we don't have a chicago task force yet, but you could be it. Slowking4 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using{{pls}})[reply]

I'm sure you were unaware that some recent edits you made to the Lincoln article's images are going against Mos Images. Please join the conversation on the talk page. Thanks. Brad (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ASW - I added some comments on the Lincoln talk page; I read your remarks on the "Shrewd Letter" section. I'd appreciate your feedback.36hourblock (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you feel that the old law school seal should be placed on the law school page. It has not been used in official or marketing communications since former Dean Van Zandt's appointment. Furthermore, even if it is being placed for historical reasons, the image that you selected is of such low quality that it disserves the page. The official seal of the law school is now the same as that of Northwestern University. IvyLaw (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many schools, such as the University of Florida, used seals at one point, but those seals are no longer in use (or no longer theofficial logos of the universities). IvyLaw (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The seal has not changed; it is still the official seal. The school's seal is not the same as the university's and has never been so. Wikipedia is not about marketing, and the seal is what goes in that place in these info boxes. The resolution issue is to satisfy copyright and it appears fine on the page. What another university has or has not done is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is this old seal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png) used or mentioned on the law school's website. In contrast, the main University's seal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwestern_University_Seal.svg), as well as the "large N" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorthwesternLaw.svg) are used for the law school's page, subpages, and vast array of publications. See, e.g., http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jilb/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/library/research/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/communications/brand/ IvyLaw(talk) 11:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A DRN has been initiated for this dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Northwestern_University_School_of_Law IvyLaw (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess - be my guest to fix it. I will give it one brief shot and that's it...Modernist (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to you is let it be for now. I placed the Cassatt, the Seurat and the Grant Wood in the gallery...Modernist(talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alanscottwalker, I believe that you are interested in the way opinion polls are dealt with in articles. There is a discussion taking place in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys, releated to changing the guidelines with respect to these, that you may be interested in. -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:NWLawSeal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

UPDATE: This image has been re-added, albeit in a different section of the article. IvyLaw (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

So I just noticed this edit you made, and I was wondering why my picture was not better. I've been trying to get more into photography recently and I'm always looking for some tips—what made the other image (the night one) better than the one I added?

Thanks in advance!

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alanscottwalker, I see you've been able to edit since I left the above post, but maybe you just didn't have time to respond to it—just wondering if you could provide any insight or anything at all? Every little tip counts, I'm not taking any photo classes right now so I'm just trying to learn as much as I can! Thanks again, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, love the Outdoor sculpture articles in Chicago. perhaps you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art? several cities have list articles, such as List of public art in Washington, D.C. which are filled out using the SIRIS database. would you be interested in a List of public art in Chicago, based on "Outdoor Sculpture -- Illinois -- Chicago"? only 449 on that list. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only? I would really have to get motivated, maybe someday soon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to this: I'm not going to indulge what seems to be a personal complaint in article talk. You made a statement that was explicitly intended to oppose Islamic philosophical beliefs(generally as a means to some claimed higher, or at least different, philosophical truth -- thus, by means of losing their individuality, they become a Form), and I pointed out that you were making a philosophical attack on Islamic tenets rather than anything pertinent to an encyclopedia. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue against Islamic tenets then you open yourself to the critique that you are engaging in a real-world dispute on Wikipedia, and I am perfectly entitled to point out that fact. Either make your argument without trying to refute Muslim belief, or own the criticism as valid; complaining about about being criticized for doing things that you've actually done is not a strong ethical position. --Ludwigs2 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain from what you've written that you don't know what ethics are. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - yeah, well, it would look that way to you. A hint, though: if you're going to critique someone, explain yourself. If you have a reason to think I don't know what ethics are, explain what you mean, otherwise you're guilty of violating wp:NPA. I've told you why I critiqued you, that gives us grounds to discuss the matter (maybe you can demonstrate I'm wrong). But you insulting me without explanation is useless and pugnacious. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it's obvious to anyone that you deliberately mixed up a definition of a word (abstraction), with attacking a religious tradition, to unethically accuse me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm sure it's obvious to everyone that you were arguing against Islamic philosophy, because your comment makes no sense in any other context. However, since claims of 'obviousness' are not really useful in an intellectual discussion, feel free to explain to me how you post was not an effort to refute the Muslim worldview, and if you're convincing I'll retract my statement and apologize. --Ludwigs220:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have consistently said that I don't think abstraction is a fit for ANY biography, NO MATTER the source, and most people are aware that abstract art and abstract writing is a worldwide phenomena in many culture, Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan I see you've reverted Ludwigs edit. I don't have an issue with that, but you do need to bring something new to the table we can do to move forward beyond the status quo.

Alternatively you need to decide you support either Ludwigs edit, or the plan to look at sources and see what they say about this.

If you don't do this you are very rapidly entering the territory of disruptive editing and simply attempting to filibuster progress. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't let the bullying of these two get to you, please. The revert was proper, their badgering is unwarranted. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not prone to being bullied. I am sure I did the right thing there, although I do not enjoy doing it or the controversy. But what I am sure of is the controversy is much larger than me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neither of us have challenged the revert.
  • Ludwigs has challenged a statement made against him. I have challenged Alan's lack of willingness to compromise.
  • Nobody can seriously argue that a dispute which requires the projects strictest discussion prevention header and which has led to half a million words of discussion over four years has a status quo which is acceptable to the wider community.
  • Ultimately though if one isn't going to bring any new ideas, or let 7 out of 9 people who have voiced an opinion in a matter try something new that is getting towards being a behavioural issue.
  • If there are other proposals that can be made, I am definitely more than willing to hear them. I think at this point I am happy to support any change from the status quo which you can get over 70% of those involved to agree on or which can be closed as a consensus by an uninvolved administrator. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have compromised, If I had my way we would leave all the current images in, under my rationale. I still think that a wide RfC on the issue is by far the best for stability, but among the tiny group of editors now engaged there is a growing consensus to leave at least one "History of the World" and one Ottoman image. I have also said that I am open to reducing all images in the ancillary topics, after the biography (his life) sections to 0.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With regards to your second compromise, you're basically saying we should remove just the Russian image and have no Western imagery at all, as removing the image in "Islamic depictions of Muhammad" isn't considered acceptable by MathSci perfectly reasonably as there isn't really any other way of showing how he's depicted.
      • If you think an RFC is a good way forward start a thread with a question you think is worth asking. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence.Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this- obviously that solves the issue too, & I guess is now the one to wish for, though I don't think support from the likes of us needs to be voiced. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I saw it too late after my most recent comment. I don't really like to comment there, where I don't think I have to.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Harlem Renaissance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Great Migration(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited City Beautiful movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago World's Fair(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I reverted your changes in Thanksgiving because they do not have consensus as discussed on the talk page and because they do not follow the guidelines about writing article introductions.Glider87 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I started a discussion on the talk page about it. It may be time to pursue WP:dispute resolution.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the articleMuhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies onverifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating toMuhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow)16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee

Hi Alan. First my apologies if it appeared that I was trying to put words in your mouth, that was not my intent at all. I thought maybe things were getting a bit off topic in regards to the intent of the thread. With that .. you have the floor. :) — Ched :  ?  18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just thought I was being misunderstood. It happens and is often my fault but thanks. Alanscottwalker(talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please seethe mediation request if you want to comment. --Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] ;) --JN466 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a allot bot, for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, could you please check your vote because I have altered the Support and Oppose options a tiny bit. I hope it does not change your vote!Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

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

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been indef proteted by Elen of the Roads -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Unfortunately, the WP:V BRD horse is already long out of the WP:POLICY barn...and page protecting the status quo is all but irrelevant to the issue I, and many others, have raised at both WP:AN and within WP:V talk as well. The BRD anarchy now transpiring within WP:Vhas already driven most good faith opposition from that arena and your closure of that WP:AN topic will simply assure that abandonment. A terribly ill-considered closure that will surely exacerbate an already blatant disregard for WP:CONLIMITED.JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may reopen or better yet start a new discussion if admin action is now warranted. There did not appear to be anything ongoing in that thread, so I was just housekeeping. You should also consider getting involved in the mediation linked above. Admins can't make consensus.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There did not appear to be anything ongoing in that thread...

It was the purpose of that thread to alert the administrative community as to a serious allegation of abrogation of the process for core policy amendment. Debate there was neither solicited, anticipated nor necessary. A normal archiving of the topic would have been entirely appropriate and was anticipated. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your closure in that light. Thanks for your consideration.JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, I don't understand; if no discussion is requested, than how can there be harm in closing, and as I said you are welcome to revert, if you feel it is warranted -- I will not object. I, however don't see the reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...if no discussion is requested, than how can there be harm in closing,...

While my topic was meant to be informative (please re-read my OP), comments ensued nonetheless...one of which was the illustrative resignation of a previously involved editor...and s/he is far from unique in that regard. "Closing" a topic suggests some "resolution" to the issue raised, decidedly not the case as to this issue about which you are keenly aware. I just don't understand why the topic was prematurely "closed" prior to the normal archival process and a "closure" is likely to precipitate further "housekeeping" into the relative oblivion of archived content. Nor am I particularly inclined to revert your closure given the current atmosphere in which this issue resides. I'm rather confident you'll understand my reticence in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On re-consideration and to preclude archiving, I have re-opened the topic per your advisement. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :).

You're being contacted because you participated in a discussion that touched on (or was about) how Wikipedia treats new pages, new editors, and the people who deal with both - patrollers. I'm happy to say we've started work on New Page Triage, a suite of software that will replace Special:NewPages and hopefully make it a more pleasant experience for all. Please take a look, read about what we're planning to do, and add any notes on the talkpage, where some additional thoughts are already posted :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Georg Solti Monument.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alan, and thanks again for taking part in the MedCab mediation about Wikipedia:Verifiability. I noticed that you haven't yet submitted a draft of the lede as I outlined in the instructions for step two, so I am just sending this message as a reminder. The deadline was 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11, but as there are still eight drafts left to come in I am extending this by a day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. To recap, I would like you to draft your ideal version of the lead to the policy and post it on the mediation page, without any commentary. You can find the full instructions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Step two. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I would especially appreciate you getting in touch if you may have difficulty meeting the new deadline. Best wishes — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, this is to let you know that I am extending the deadline by another day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Tuesday, March 13. This time, I'm going to go ahead without people who don't submit a draft before the deadline. Don't worry, though - If I progress without you, then it doesn't mean that I'm kicking you out, it just means that you will have to catch up when you are ready to participate again. Also, if you let me know that you will have problems submitting things on time, then I may be able to make concessions for you, so I would be grateful if you could do that rather than just leaving it until the deadline. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I meant to respond earlier to your requests above. As I mentioned early on, I support what you all are doing but do not think I have much to add, at this time. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. If you want to get involved at a later date just send me a message and we can work out how to do things. —Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the image of the Frinck bust, but I am taking the article through FAC, where the use of a "fair use" image will assuredly be ruled out as we have several free images of Solti. If the image were free use (and I am not clear why it isn't) I should welcome it with open arms, but rules are rules. Tim riley (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your great work but I would like to "defend" its use if it is challenged because under UUI#6 it is clearly proper. It also makes the section better. Is there a FAC "rule" which supports removal because it is within fair use policy? Indeed, I am sure there are FAC articles with such images. Also, I am not sure if you implied this but it is not being used to show what he looked like.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very pleased if it survived FAC, but the image police can be frightfully dogmatic. Let's leave it and see what happens, but don't be surprised if they remove it. I think the problem is the description in the uploaded image file, which, if I correctly understand it, could state that the image is free use as a photograph of an outdoor three dimensional work of art. However, I'm no expert, and I suggest we fasten our seatbelts and see how bumpy the ride is. It's a splendid photograph, if I may say so. Regards! Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking me along for the ride and I am aware of all the "nits" you are signing up for. As for why its in that uploaded posture, in the US there is no general freedom of panorama (which, basically, makes all buildings free game but some public art not). There would need to be some more info to really get at it, perhaps because it is made by a Brit or what she did with whatever rights she had before she died. But it is currently at its most perhaps overly conservative posture. In the meantime, if we keep it in it wont get deleted, without some further discussion of it. Thanks again.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, the image reviewer at FAC has asked me to remove the image. If you like to argue to the contrary on the FAC page (here), please do, but I'm not optimistic about the final result. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we lost. I thought we would, though one of the editors in favour of keeping the image has elsewhere reproached me for not making a more robust defence of it. But please accept my thanks for your efforts, and your interest in the article, both of which I have greatly valued.Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did fine. It is a shame that those twists of policy were born out in such a useless and harmful way but life goes on.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to another editor this way in the edit summary is uncivil,[3] and is the kind of thing which tends to escalate disputes, not de-escalate. In the future, please try to be more neutral in your edit summaries, as that will be more helpful towards navigating through a dispute, thanks. --Elonka 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am afraid I disagree, saying another editor's statement is wrong is not uncivil. It clearly states a disagreement.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, I would have no objection, if you requested the mediator to refractor only your name, as long as it is still clear what my edit comment is referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I asked him about it for you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor case. Things are getting heated, and this may be a symptom. Do try to make neutral edit summaries. But it's no biggie, just be more careful in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Georg Solti Monument.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Crisco 1492(talk) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alanscottwalker. I noticed your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Muhammad Images. In my opinion this is not something that needs to be resolved at AE, and would not normally require any amendment by Arbcom. I notice that User:AlexandrDmitri did some clerking on the Muhammad Images case. If you think the discrepancy in deadlines is serious, consider asking him what to do. Another option for you is a post at WT:AC/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will leave it for the time being but will ask Alexander about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, next time when you leave a note like this, can you make a note at AE? I just transferred it to A/R/A and came here to tell that to Alanscottwalker...anyway, it's at WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Muhammad images now. T. Canens (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your participation on this article. I have a draft for appeal to the RS Noticeboard at <User:Parkwells/sandbox> and would appreciate your taking a look before I send it on. I have not used this route before (but should have). The disruption at the Thomas Jefferson article has gone on far too long, with at least three persistent editors refusing to acknowledge current scholarship, or arguing an NPOV means ignoring the consensus among historians because some disagree.Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I posted one at RS/N this morning please add to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent contributions!66.87.2.142 (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits. They are very much appreciated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alanscottwalker/archive1: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on ourtalk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alan! I need your valuable feedback here. I hope you see the point. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thank you! :) Brendon is here 07:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Alanscottwalker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alan! Thank you for taking the time to answer my question about the RfC process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Much appreciated. Thom2002 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Illinois Country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Barre(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing, you probably intended your opinion to go in the preceding section. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go toWP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are atWP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t| c} 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine! We're getting there - right now we're working on individual opinions. Sorry it's taking so long! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Dear Alanscottwalker, thank you for the kindness that you've shown towards me recently. You stood up for me and the positive contributions that I've made here at Wikipedia. I really appreciate this act of charity and hope that God will bless you and your family in abundance. The image in this barnstar has a smile in it, which you brought to my face today. I hope that this barnstar will do the same to you. Your new friend, AnupamTalk 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but actually I was criticizing you for several things. I don't think the evidence showed you unredeemable however. I especially think any packs are bad for the wiki, and I think you have been involved with that, in addition to POV pushing and IDHT.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article,Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]