Hello, Fences and windows, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. 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. And, please remember to always fill out the edit summary. Again, welcome!  DGG 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are concerned with the notability of the GA characters and tagged them with the notability concern tags. It would be much easier to start some real work if you instead tag them with merge tags and start a discussion on why you think they are not notable. Tagging pages with tags without mentioning the actual problem you concern is simply offensive to the original editors and solves nothing since you do not clearly display your point of view. MythSearcher^talk 05:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much better. The point is to try to present your own view instead of just using tags. MythSearcher^talk 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my reasons at Talk:Open_access#Open_access_movement.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. Please be aware that prior attempts to rationalise this have run into considerable frustration. DGG (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see that you just undid my deletion of my talk page. i'm new here. Please let me know if it is possible to clean up my talk page. --Sasikiran (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

got it. I will have some text before blanking thanks --Sasikiran (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start it.

I understand, but Bill Murray is coming to my school, and I find that very important, as our school never has big visitors such as him. Worthy of being in the article. 70.189.46.180 (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hour Films. 70.189.46.180 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've replied to your query on my talkpage for continuity. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Torture garden (fetish club) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Frehley^{Space Ace} 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but something like this is certainly not notable, nor is it suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia isn't censored, but there are certain rules for inclusion and a place like this doesn't meet them. In fact, there wasn't much to the article which backed up the notability claim. Please consider contributing something of meaning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again; not really interested in calling up the potential of a less-than-family friendly site here at work.  :) Seriously, if this, um, establishment is as important as you say, I'm all for an article. As I pointed out, this site is uncensored, but inclusion of this kind of material requires a heck of a lot of third-party references. In cases like this, I often suggest the creation of a user subpage upon which you can build the article: User:Fences and windows/Torture Garden (fetish club). If you can flesh it out (no pun intended) and can provide some third-party references, you should be OK. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies. I didn't mean to impugn your knowledge of the site. In any event, creating this on a subpage will prevent it from being deleted while you work on it. Inclusion of this kind of content tends to be a bit contentious at times, but no administrator will likely delete it if the place has notable references. Good luck with the contribution. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working to create an organized categorization of pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, wanted to get your feedback on that page? kilbad (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, - Now, I'll admit, ''perhaps I jumped the gun. Hopefully the user will review the policy and guideline pages, at least the basics, and there won't be anymore confusion. I noticed that you also left 2 previous warnings in template format, and my third warning is pretty standard issue in these cases. However, I removed the 3rd warning and replaced with not only a welcome message, but a personalized apology as well - due solely to your ((uw-bite)) template. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the user did not heed the previous warnings, and at least contact someone in response to those warnings. It occurs to me that most users, new or not, when confronted with 2 warnings about the edits they are making - that they would want to stop introducing unacceptable material into articles. Wikipedia is not a playground, and if the user wanted to experiment with introducing edits which obviously did not belong in the article - s/he should have been doing so in user space. And the closer I look, the more I have my doubts.

• this
• this (which I reverted)

and then

• this (after already being told it wasn't acceptable.)

just seems questionable to me - sorry.

I am all for not biting, and for welcoming new users - I have been on the receiving end of some bites as well. I'm glad you took the time to look into the matter, and I will watchlist the users contribs for a bit, and see where it goes.

On one closing note, while I'm far from being a seasoned veteran, I would have hoped that my contributions would exclude me from the newbie warning templates, - I noticed a page some time back, and hoped that I was within the Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars region, but I guess you don't agree. Well, that's just my thoughts on the matter, all IMHO as they say. I admire your efforts to be welcoming to the new users, and I wish you Kind Regards. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 09:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC) (cc: UT)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Fences and windows (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. Hehe. Fences and windows (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO PROBLEMS! <* Big Smiles Now *> .. I was just taken aback a little cause it looked like you were trying to build an article, and the editor was trying to vandalize what you were doing, so when you told me to be nice - I was like - huh? ... lol. .. And I really do admire your looking after the new users! My name is Ched (obviously) by the way, and it's nice to meet you Fences! — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 09:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ps, I thought about the DTTR - but thought it might be just a tad much ... lol

Dear Fences and Windows, the edit war continues on this page. Can you protect the page and put an end to this slander. Yasser Latif Hamdani (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; please do lock the page. There is no religious freedom for me to be an Ahmedi even on Wikipedia.--YLHamdani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for what point exactly? I have backed my one change with a verifiable source that you would do well to go through. YLHamdani (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Comment moved from the next section by - Eldereft (cont.) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have refactored talk pages comments, you are impersonating Hamdani, you have made personal attacks on the talk page and you are using a sockpuppet IP account to edit

If you had bothered to read it you would have seen my point. And: a) I have not changed any comments. b) I would like to know Wikipeida's policy on who they detremine the veracity of a living person. c) I have not made any personl attacks d) I am not using any other IP. e) Please refer any changes made to the Hamdani article on the Talk page

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YLHamdani (talk • contribs) 07:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. That formatting and language made the article a bit too much like an extension of their website. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who do you think got it wrong three times....?

You can follow me around from article to article, if you like. People like me need people like you.

Amandajm (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! We all go off half-cocked at times!

I wonder if life would be easier if I took it more seriously?

So I made a ham and mustard sandwich and a cuppa and looked it up. The OED gives "spacial" as a variant, but treats "spatial" as the main. I wonder how I wrote it that way 3 times in a row. It doesn't even look right....

I appreciate anyone who corrects my spelling.... as long as they don't change "colour" to "color" and remove the double consonants before "ed".

Amandajm (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on "spelt". I recently did a little tour of most of my major articles and added a banner to the talk page saying that the article used British English, just in case there was any argument. It's a good option. Incidentally, I'm Australian, but have never lost my British links and get England whenever possible. However, my Australian manner which alternates between straight-speaking and crows-fly-backward does get me into trouble at times. Amandajm (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi there. i'm about to reply to the thread you started about the origins of the game as i've looked in to this quite a bit myself. i'm afraid ohnoitsjamie will revert my reply so that you don't get a chance to see it so i'll post it here too just in case :) Jessi1989 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tried using a radio interview recording hosted on this site as a reference before. discovered it was blacklisted, looked into it trying to find the reason and/or get it whitelisted for legitimate use. got a baseless, malicious SSP filed against me by none other than mickmacnee, seconded by ohnoitsjamie, and was indef blocked with no evidence. eventually i got unblocked by a more reasonable admin after i explained the situation enough times, although i still had to promise not to edit the Jonty Haywood article until i'm more experienced (he's the site owner and i was trying to refer to the recording in the article about him). but now ohnoitsjamie has basically said, screw the rules, if i even mention that site by name, he'll indef block me... earlier this month i responded to the other discussion about origins above simply saying there were some listed on that site - check out my talk page to see what happened next. so i guess what i'm saying is i'd love to help you with this, as i looked in to it quite a bit before, but i'd prob get indefblocked and am afraid you'd get the same treatment (they'd prob call you my sock, or meatpuppet, or a duck, or whatever). as the debate about this harmless image has shown, there are some editors here who have such a huge dislike of this topic they'll do anything they can to ridicule, insult, threaten, attack and drive off any well-meaning editors that try to make positive edits to the article. i think zincbelief's been on the receiving end of this too. so, if you're going to look into the blacklisting of that site or even bring up the idea of using it as a source, be careful! Jessi1989 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pasted this text from my talk page, in reply to your comment:

I read through the entire page and talk page, scanned the page history, skimmed every Wikipedia policy, guideline, and essay they cited, and performed a comprehensive Google search on the blacklisted web site. I also viewed both OhNoItsJamie's and MickMacnee's User pages and skimmed their User Talk pages (finding, ironically, they both had had some temporary bans themselves). I feel I have seen enough to form some reasonable opinions and draw some reasonable conclusions.

OhNoItsJamie very aggressively removes spam, and has received some unwarranted complaints as a result. He has a tremendous edit count and hopefully has significantly improved Wikipedia, However, he often seems to receive legitimate complaints from people banned or reverted without adequate review of their edits. His dismissive tone and excessive rudeness are astonishing in their frequency and magnitude. I do not doubt his value as a copyeditor, but his administrative actions do seem questionable an unfortunate amount of the time.

Mickmacnee is somewhat different. He has considerable experience with biographical articles, as he claims, but unfortunately this experience seems to have done little good. His edits are more inconsistent than OhNoItsJamie's, and generally more disparaging. The archives on his talk page tell a story of ceaseless problematic vandalism, reverts, and ad hominems. He has been banned on and off for a long time.

The thing is, I am not substantially involved in any major abuse. Other users on the page were, and should report the problem.

On another note, I posted a proposal to remove losethegame.com from the blacklist. Some spamming accusations are legitimate, but the accusation of promoting vandalism of Wikipedia seems unfounded, at least at this point. It is possible the promotion of wiki vandalism was removed long ago in order to increase the chances of Wikipedia starting an article on The Game. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you might have noticed, I support your proposed merge of Alcohol abuse into Alcoholism for exactly the reasons that you cited. However, I did want to point out one small thing: according to some of the "fine print" in this section of the guideline, the discussion should be consolidated and take place only on one page. It looks like a discussion header was added to both pages, which could lead to confusion and redundancies. I'm not going to change anything that you've done, I just wanted to bring it up for your consideration. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the article's quality - once past the lede it degenerates rapidly. It would probably be a good idea to do some significant cleanup before any attempt to merge, and I already excised one entire section which seemed inherently unecyclopedic (the personal questionaire in the middle of the article). I'm no subject-matter expert in this field but I had worked previously on the main Alcoholism article with Dr. Gitlow and others, and I'm confident that some cooperative effort will yield positive results here as well. Thanks again for bringing this to wider attention! Doc Tropics 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't notice. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]