Sorry, I didn't catch the nub of your statement in ANI.[1] This isn't a process I'm particularly familiar with. Your summary seemed reasonable in many respects. If I could be sure that my lack of comment would not be seized as an opportunity for attacks on me, I'd be more comfortable. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't mean I'd sanction anyone for continuing to discuss this at AN/I, it was a request. I was suggesting using Wikiquette Alerts instead of AN/I as it's always easy for threads at AN/I to escalate into recrimination, and WQA offers a better venue for resolving behavioural disputes. It might help to apologise for suggesting that another editor's illness should prevent them from editing. Fences&Windows 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add comments here. nirvana2013 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As troubling as it probably was for you to write that statement, I am no longer concerned with this article as recent media coverage has proved its notability. I do, however, appreciate that you took you time out to do that. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Part of the advice of the guideline is to wait a few days for current events before writing about them (fat chance!) or nominating them for deletion, as they're a moving target. Fences&Windows 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your great work on expanding Social netvetting and thus for demonstrating the importance of WP:BEFORE. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, ta. Fences&Windows 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent work in expanding this article - thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for starting it. I bought it last month and thought it was very touching, I think some of the reviewers were expecting too much from it. I still need to expand the production section some more and add some notes on its distribution and reception. I think it's the first time I've done a plot description, it's quite wrenching to put in spoilers and very tricky to avoid just exhaustively listing every scene. Incorporating some comments on the plot from reviews is also on my to-do list. Fences&Windows 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No probs. Sorry for not getting back earlier - I'm not that familar with how to get articles to the different classes. The film projet has an assement page that gives more details. Thanks again for the expansion! Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps Harvey, the pooka, the invisible rabbit in Jimmy Stewart's film Harvey (film), is worthy of a "See also" with Smoke, the invisible dragon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why, yes he is! Fences&Windows 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied to you in the article's discussion page. Cosmos 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And your signature? Fences&Windows 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To User:NuclearWarfare, User:Fences and windows, and User:Stifle

I'm interested in discussing when we userfy and incubate articles, but while doing some review of our deletion policy articles, I noticed a need for some technical copy editing to tighten up the wording of the existing articles. (For example, some options are listed in our deletion policy that are not mentioned in XFD and vice versa.) I'm not sure where to start such a discussion—whether it belongs on the discussion page of Deletion policy, with notices on XFD talk pages, or someplace central like WP:VPI. I considered, and rejected WP:VPP, as I am discussing only copy editing, not policy changes, at this time. I picked three sysops I respect to ask for advice.

My draft writeup is here Deletion policy observations--SPhilbrickT 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An excellent step, good idea. Our policies do need to be consistent and comprehensive, and this fragmentation is a natural consequence of collaborative editing. I'll take a look. I think wider discussion at WT:DELPOL with a notice at WP:VPP would be the best to get wider participation. Fences&Windows 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Got the same answer from two of you, so I'll go ahead at WT:DELPOL.--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your input on my talk page. I am sorry that you felt my unblock decline transgressed WP:BITE; it did not seem so to me nor was it intended to. You will note that I unblocked this user (it was not my block) some long time before your posting. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's worked out OK and it was great that you did unblock. It was the original treatment and block of this editor that was most at fault. Fences&Windows 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this [[2]] one hundred percent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also opened a Amin recall section on his page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I trully apologise. I didn´t wanted to intefere there at all, but I felt that I needed to ask for prove of the acusations that were directed towards me. I´m not sure, but from what I know, people here are too busy, and can easily see the situation in a different perspective than the real one. I mean, his phalse acusations may be taken serios. I also gave him another chance to apologise, because he insulted me several times, and still does! The "barnstar" he made was made for me, and I may have not reacted in the most correct way there, I know. As I had said, I will avoid him, as I already did several ocasions, because this time, I had honestly lost all faith that he can possibly have a normal dialogue on wiki. I apologise once more, and I will take this oportunity to thank you for having taken action in a situation that was being ignored for much time. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, good. If someone is exhibiting poor behaviour, the last thing you should do is exacerbate the situation by baiting them. If he continues to use insults etc. after coming off his ban, let me know straight away. Fences&Windows 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I´ll certainly follow your advice. Thank you once more. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am interested in seeing a (specific) deleted article. What's the procedure? 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs)

Tell me which one first! I can check and if there are no copyright, BLP, or other problems that rule it out I can restore it to your user space or email the contents and contributors list. Fences&Windows 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(sheepishly): ouch. I didn't realize you were waiting like that. I actually don't have a need to view the article anymore. I do really appreciate the help, and please tell me if you ever open an RfB, I'll be glad to comment. Thank you muchly, and if you are curious, the article was Boxxy. Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for conomination if you so wish. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your kind post on my talk page! I've answered there, but wasn't sure if you'd necessarily have my talk page watchlisted (and I took my sweet time in replying...!)

Anyway - thank you. Your suggestion is one I'm actively considering, and although I don't think I'll be going through with it right now I'm now assuming I've almost run out of excuses and will be going through with it "soon".

Thanks again, TFOWR^propaganda 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers is still marked as a proposal. It looks like a supplement of Wikipedia:Search engine test to me, should it be marked as such? Fences&Windows 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I knew I had written that essay some time ago but could not find it.

I would say WP:SET is a how-to guide on finding sources, but WP:GNUM should be an actual guideline on using Google in the deletion process. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'm going through the old proposals to weed out the stale and failed, and once I've done that I'll look at reviving or widening discussion on the remaining proposals. Fences&Windows 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't want to make an issue of this, but I feel that you were unnecessarily hostile in your attitude toward me, and that you did not assume good faith. I genuinely wanted to improve the article, but had not found any suitable articles to substantiate the use of the term in an encyclopedia. I tried to find sources that mentioned MTV Gen in a serious context, and couldn't. I'm sorry that I failed in this task, and perhaps I could have tried harder, but I no longer have access to university databases, and have no local library. I asked others and they found several sources, but if you look through the history you can see that they did not meet wikipedia standards. As no one, even the most ardent supporters was able to produce any sources of any use, it seemed logical to conclude that they quite possibly did not exist. I think you'll find that in general I have been a reasonably conscientious contributor to wikipedia off and on for years, and am not a crazed deletionist. In future perhaps I'll try to be more careful, but I still stand by my actions which I think improved the encyclopedia. This article is a lot better now than it was, and I expect it would have been years waiting using any other method. If I was making a habit of nominating for deletion, or blanking pages I would understand your attitude. Perhaps in future you could tone down your rhetoric. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had not seen your message. Thanks. I have deleted personally directed comments. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP had added some material in Excommunication of Margaret McBride justifying the Catholic position. Can you please check that for neutrality. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a huge neutrality problem; I do see a potential issue of original research, but that should be easily remedied by only referring to interpretations and opinions given in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but before being blocked, User:LAz17 has posted some strange links on the discussion on Talk:FK_Partizan#logo. He had proposed the club logo to be changed, but the club official website has the one that was in place on the article and that he desagreed with. His proposal was turned down, but after some discussions on another talk page, regarding a name change that was also turned down, and that I also voted not to be accepted, he in vengance, altered the Partizan logo almost in a vandal move. When I tryied to explain to him that he was not right, he trolled me giving me some links that I didn´t opened, but that I can see from the link title that they are offensive. The first one says "Krme jedno" meaning something like "Dirty pig", and I´m not going to open them, but I suspect they are not official website as he claims. It is found on the bottom of the link of the Partizan talkpage I gave you. What shall we do? Should the links he put there be removed? I suspect they are insultive and possibly harmfull. FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a link to his photobucket, it's a screenshot showing the logo in use on a website. I don't know what that phrase means, but he's already blocked for incivility. A literal translation is probably not correct, I think it's a common phrase though probably mildly insulting. I'd leave the links be. As for the content dispute, the logo is obviously used both with and without the stars above it. However, I found a news story posted to the official FK Partizan website that complained about news media not using the two stars:[3] I also found that "The two stars symbolize 20 championship titles which Partizan gained in its history."[4] The 2009/10 jersey has the stars on the logo:[5]. Based on this I'd support using the logo with the stars. Fences&Windows 11:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, I wasn´t sure about the links, and since I saw that they are not the official website, I was kind of suspicious about them. Regarding the logo, the link he has provided doesn´t really mean nothing, since that is a logo found on a link to another website, not the official one. The official one ([6]) has only one logo, with stars. Regarding the comment, I informed better, and I found out that the expression is used when someone is being called stupid. I was not showing you this to get him blocked, but rather to ask you how to procede in this situation. Since my downlowding manager is not working properly, I´ll see someone to fix the logo. Thank you very much for the links you provided to me, they say it all, and I´m really sorry to make you loose time on this. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw you corrected the situation regarding the logo. I also hope that this will send a message that wikipedia works strictly with sources, and not personal preferences, neither favours between users. Thank you very much. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've changed my !vote to Merge accordingly. Robofish (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments on this page are totally unacceptable. You're supposed to be an admin, and yet you appear to deal with an AfD request that you don't like by throwing around baseless accusations. I want this resolved; it's not reasonable to expect new users to deal with an attack by an admin.

I suggest that you 1) Find some actual evidence for your claim 2) Show that it isn't empty misdirection by having the appropriate checks performed (what is the point of outing a sockpuppet if nobody is going to deal with it?) or 3) apologise. Please note that those options include the possibility of me being guilty; I'm not trying to make demands for a resolution that doesn't benefit you).

Could you also explain how calling somebody a sockpuppet with little evidence and not acting on it is in any way constructive? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to beat around the bush when single-purpose accounts start AfDs. You're not a new user, so don't pretend to be one. Fences&Windows 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what evidence? Is it a hard rule in your mind that any user who has only filed an AfD request is automatically guilty of being a "single purpose account", even when Wikipedia advises users to create an account to finish the AfD process? (This is not why I created my account, to be honest. I originally created it to use the old-style theme and then decided to contribute).

So, any new user who has bothered to familiarise himself with Wikipedia before attempting to contribute should be forced to fend off accusations like this from people who are supposed to enforce the rules? Do you want all new users to be totally ignorant?

I've tried to work this out with you, but you're still intent on acting this way, so I'm asking a third party for help. I don't intend to be bullied out of editing Wikipedia. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding Sockpuppet accusations on new user. Thank you. --Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fast flip logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...for updating the Hansard source on the LibDem candidate's page. Sharp work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratner's Star (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hot on the heels of Cy Q Faunce, his partner in crime User:Mthai66 leaves me this [7] on my talk page, implying that he has found out my info, gotten a copy of my discharge and that he decided it somehow doesn't match what's on my user page. Should I even bother with an ANI trip on it? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indef blocked. Disgusting behaviour. Seems to be quite a campaign:[8]. Fences&Windows 12:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Interesting. Too bad his "facts" are completely backwards. He keeps claiming I'm a supporter of Frank Dux, when anyone with enough smarts to find the edit history can see that I have removed tons of unverified, self-serving crapola from that article and been one of the editors that has kept the fanboys from turning it into a Dux lovefest. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Fences, I thought I'd post to your talk page, as you seem like the most interested party. Allow me, if you will, to pose a hypothetical

Say I were a fanatical southerner in the US. Say I was out to discredit & defame the Union. I might go to the Sherman's March page and insert the following material.

1) Proffessor X of University X was quoted as saying "Sherman actions were clearly war crimes and Sherman should have been tried and executed"

2) Proffessor Y of University Y wrote in his book "Sherman negated all the morale good that came out of eliminating slavery"

3) Noted politician Z from Mississippi once posted on his blog "Sherman was clearly a meany, and evidence that northerners are out to get people."

I think you'd agree that these edits would be a clear case of POV pushing that add little to the article?

If Proffessor X & Y as well as politician Z were all notable/eminent individuals who were authoritative sources on the civil war, what WP policy could be pointed to in order to prevent these kind of edits?

Sorry to hassle you with this, but I've seen a number of POV pushers engaged in the kind of practice above, and I really think there ought to be some specific policy banning it.

Anyway, if you still find my argument unconvincing, I won't bother again.

Thanks for your consideration. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm no fan of this sort of POV pushing either, but I think WP:NPOV is the policy to use against that kind of quote mining, and is adequate. If the selection of experts is either questionable or partisan, that's something that hopefully can be thrashed out on the talk page or on the NPOV noticeboard if necessary. Referring to other opinions given by experts in reliable sources is the way to counter this: this can show that the POV being presented is a minority view, and possibly even a fringe view that doesn't deserve coverage in the article. We need opinions and analysis from experts to give context and flesh out the dry facts. For example, was Sherman's March unprecedented in military history? That's somewhat subjective, but the opinions of historians on this question would be good to know. Was Sherman's attack adventurism that got lucky or sound military tactics? Did Sherman's attack breach rules of war, was it collective punishment, was it standard for the time? What did Sherman's contemporaries on both sides and abroad think of this campaign? The article currently barely mentions that Sherman's March was controversial among Southerners - why exactly was it controversial? Who says it was controversial? Remember that we can give coverage to notable points of view without endorsing them. A good source not currently might be James Reston, Jr.'s book "Sherman's March and Vietnam. Fences&Windows 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Fences, thanks for the comments. I think we understand each other's positions better. I'm not suggesting that offering opinions/quotes from experts is always inappropriate. On the contrary, it often adds context and value to articles.

What I am suggesting is that I've seen a lot of people doing what you call "quote mining". Editors trying to voice thier own personal view points, by finding people who seem notable and have quotes expressing the same view points (i.e. soapboxing by proxy).

Re "Referring to other opinions given by experts in reliable sources is the way to counter this" - Often times this leads to these ridiculous quote wars, where one person adds a POV quote, and then another adds two to counter it, followed by the original editor coming back and adding three.

To sum up, I guess your sentiment is that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view guards against this kind of practice. I think the "Don't misrepresent the relevant prominence of opposing views." section touches on it, but doesn't really directly address it. I still feel writing something into policy that directly addresses "quote mining" or "soap boxing through proxy" would be appropriate.

I don't seem to be getting much support on this. I think the idea might be a little too dense to rapidly digest. After reading stuff like Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Criticism_of_the_apartheid_analogy though, I'm convinced we need something. Alas, perhaps I'll have to sleep on this idea. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the issue there is the separation out of a "Criticism of..." section. There's an essay on that subject at Wikipedia:Criticism that might touch on some of what you're raising. WP:NPOV would be the policy to tweak if it isn't clear enough on avoiding quote mining/soapboxing-by-proxy, but I think it does already address what you're concerned about. Fences&Windows 15:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... Ok Fences. Thanks for the discussion. It was productive, and provided food-for-thought. If we don't see eye-to-eye we at least we understand each other's opinion. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fences and windows - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for commenting on the dispute.[9] Due to the hotly disputed naming of the geographical features in the photo, I thought it best for the editors there to come up with a neutral, non-controversial caption such as "NASA JPL to-scale size comparison image of Enceladus". What are your thoughts on that? Dreadstar ☥ 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That'd be fine too. Anything to make everyone stop squabbling over something so trivial. Fences&Windows 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

p.s. This should go into WP:LAME. Fences&Windows 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell me about it, it's crazy! The whole associated naming dispute is a huge problem, even attracting combative socks and odd third-party doppleganger creations. Support for the uncontroversial "moon size comparision" caption wording is most welcome. I'm probably going to have to extend protection on that article, it expires later today. Dreadstar ☥ 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I hate to bother you but things are out of control here. As you can see, the personal attacks and uncivil behavior is out of control with two users. I'm not taking the bait this time. I would appreciate it if you would look into this matter and resolve it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for going there so promptly. I very much appreciate it. I hope what you said is listened to. I am done there for now. I do apologize for getting into there too. I lost my temper which I don't do very often and I always regret it when I do. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This post is part and parcel of the issues I have with Jack, besides his wikistalking of me, which led me to complain about his conduct toward me at WP:AN/I. He misrepresents that "The other party, however, is ignoring that and is in all-out wiki-war mode." If there is a discussion at Moonriddengirl's talk page, I've not been invited to join in, so how can I be ignoring that? I have posted at the Village Pump as well, so that's not being ignored. The rest ("The other option I'm considering, besides an RFC/U, is asking Ryan if this would be something MedCom would take on.") is typical of the thinly veiled threats Jack drops about me, and it will be added to the AN/I evidence. Meanwhile, I have also requested that Chowbok remove his personal attack against me and the other editors who posted in support at Talk:Scarlett Johansson and templated him for making personal attacks. He does that routinely everywhere he goes, especially when butting in to post attacks against me at user talk pages. It's sort of ironic that he that in defense of someone who was a sockpuppet himself. Could you please deal with this, especially the Chowbok comments? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand by my post. 1) there is talk and a link re a new RfC and MRG at VPP. 2) mediation is part of WP:DR, as is RFC/U (and talk which you also refuse to engage in seriously), and 3) you've a sock career^{+user:Sara's Song} yourself. Jack Merridew 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then if you think you can substantiate sock activity with regard to those editors who posted, file it. Please. And prove the Sara's Song contention besides a figment of SkagitRiverQueen and Chowbok's speculation. I find it quite difficult to have any sort of "talk" with someone who turns around and attacks at every junction. And again, I was never notified of any talk at MRG's talk page, yet you slam me for not participating. Not good. I only came across it by accident. Meanwhile, I will write the admin who was sent the copies of our IDs that prove we are separate people. Lar seemed to think the admin would move on it and that hasn't happened. But that sock thing has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Just more ways to bring up slams. Just because you seem proud of it doesn't mean everyone has to flagellate themselves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Chickenmonkey is saying at your talk page is essentially correct, your engagement with Jack Merridew isn't helping. Reacting every time he provokes you isn't going to help your case. As far as I can tell things are moving towards another RfC, and Moonriddengirl is helping to facilitate this at User talk:Moonriddengirl#fyi re ACTORcolours. So what if you weren't aware of that conversation? So what if Jack Merridew is waving around accusations of sockpuppetry? I don't think anyone is paying any attention. At the moment, posting at WP:AN/I simply generates more heat than light. Considering that a new RfC on the general issue of the standardisation of wikitables is forthcoming, any edits to revert tables to your preferred version wouldn't be helpful - wait for the outcome of the RfC. Ultimately, you want a certain colour in filmographies, but the justification for this appears to be entirely subjective - you and others at the WikiProject like that colour. On the other side, Jack Merridew is concerned not about the colour, but about the standardisation of markup of tables, which may or may not really matter. But the other factor is a behavioural one - Jack Merridew objects to your WikiProject imposing a local consensus against agreed guidelines, and you object to Jack Merridew apparently unilaterally overriding what you see as an agreed consensus. The solution is not to argue with Jack Merridew, but to calmly and succinctly persuade other Wikipedians that you are correct. As DGG says, "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Fences&Windows 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's me; User:Senang Hati was renamed User:Jack Merridew. It's a COI-username; see Senang Hati Foundation, an article I started and an organization I helped out. User:Senang Hati was later re-created by Grawp, since moved to User:Senang Hati (impersonator) (and deleted). User:Senang Hati was re-re-created by User:Redux, who handed the account back over to me. We had an agreement that I would post my own note about the whole hijacking of my prior account on the talk page (this was before old-names were automatically re-created, and is actually a part of why that code was added to the rename function). But Winhunter happened along and protected the pages against Grawp. He knew nothing of the emails I had with Redux about this. Anyway, I didn't bother following up on it all, at the time.

The current User:Senang Hati account is under my control and I'm actually logged into it at the moment in a different browser. The account is blocked, has no edits whatsoever, and I have the 1000 actor bios in that watchlist, too. I have the 8000 unwatched BLPs in another of my old watchlists in yet another browser.

My other old user and talk pages are not protected and I've edited them as I see fit. I was advised by folks with whole handfuls of advanced-access-bits to tone down the sock-theme, which is why I re-did User:Jack Merridew as a dynamic page instead of one with a huge sockbox in the center. Seen the repeated false-SPI investigations n00bz fell into? It's funny but I'm looking forward, not back. User:Senang Hati should be in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle once I post whatever note, which will cover much of this. This is really a part of my good faith transparency and acknowledgment of my socky past ;)

Thanks.

Jack Merridew 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Signature edited by F&WReply[reply]

p.s. I also meant to point out that the [information] link on the two pages is broken due to the template not supporting a full url being handed-in. The link should be information. I'd sort this out, of course. Fix the template, too, once I RfA. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; I still have to do a better note; I pointed at this discussion in an edit summary. I've made talk pages edits with the old accounts over time, mostly to allow CU-checks, but also to declare what accounts I still have control over. Over time, I've been able to recall the passwords to some of them. Could you fully unprotect so User:Senang Hati can make make a note on the talk as I've done with the others? — this sort of thing. The account is not autoconfirmed and can't even edit the semi'd talk page.

My original User:Davenbelle account is properly scuttled and that's what led to the AC directing me to use this sock and the precedent of a street-legal sockpuppet. I've been commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban and the idea is that I now go mend fences with the community so I'm not going to ask the AC and mentors about details such as old user pages.

From my perspective, my User:Jack Merridew account stands in the middle of all the old accounts that sport the sockboxes and point at Jack. While indefed, my Jack page had one, too, and when I returned, I kept it, only with tweaks such as 'unblocked indefinitely'; see User:Jack Merridew/Header text, and there are variants in the history. The socking is old history and amounts to dramatic baggage. I find a lot of it funny, but do see that folks use it as a weapon. I've been frequently advised to not give others ammo, and I'd like your opinion on how to handle this. Am I a sockpuppet-forever? Does the page ever turn?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm concerned your sockpuppetry is in the past, and you should stop bringing it up so often! The "Jack Merridew" account is not now a sockpuppet: it is your main account after a clean start. By all means be open about your past and have discrete notices about your account history on your user page, but do stop using the label of "sock puppet" (in your garish signatures, header text etc.) as some bizarre badge of pride. I've fully unprotected User:Senang Hati and its talk page. Fences&Windows 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I left an initial note and will flesh it out. I've just recalled a meta:account-matrix that needs updating. The header is no longer in use and the sig is an occasional bit of code I hand-paste into edits. I use the puppet icon as the link to the history page; on user pages, in the awesome sig you removed. I saw it referred to as 'pride' and that's not it, really. I'm in a unique position. On commons, I have two prior accounts (Davenbelle and Moby Dick) and they're blocked at my own request. I did those user pages as simple galleries of images the accounts had uploaded. I'm thinking of doing the same here, which would cut down on the sock theme. Anyway, this is all back-burner stuff that I've been poking along. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try, but this would be easier if any admin would talk to WHL about her behavior. She is a serious problem editor, and this dispute with Jack is only the latest manifestation. I refer you to my history; I've certainly had disputes with other editors, but never one like this, and I've been around here a while. WHL gets in a similar spat every week with another editor. Doesn't that suggest where the root of the problem lies?—Chowbok ☠ 03:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you suggest, Chowbok? An RFC/U on WHL? You and Jack will have some serious questions to answer if you are suggesting that: I'll back it up with diffs "aplenty" (research is gathering, trust me). Focus on the Wiki: not WHL. Move on - or let the chips fall where they may. Not a template warning, BTW... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have spoken to WHL. This isn't about whose fault it is, it's about keeping disruption to a minimum so we can carry on editing an encyclopedia. And Doc9871 - not helpful, you only seem to be wanting to get a rise out of Chowbok here. Can everyone please stop taking sides and instead just focus on the actual content/formatting dispute? Fences&Windows 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not "trolling" or "hounding" Chowbok - but I do understand what you mean here. I'm trying to keep the peace as well - and if that doesn't happen, I've got the "cahones" to tango with whomever needs only a "rise". I'm trying to end this conflict as well; and I will do my part. If that's not "helpful", then we should take it to another place. Agreed? Doc9871 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha, yeah, he's "trying to keep the peace". That's why when he saw an unexpected outbreak of civility on Crohnie's talk page, he immediately stepped in and made sure it escalated back into a flamewar. I don't deny I rose to the bait, but at least I'm not claiming to be a peacekeeper.

Fences, I appreciate that you talked to WHL as well.—Chowbok ☠ 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, enough. Go back to editing. Fences&Windows 14:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but there is a question from me to you at the article talk page Scarlett Johansson here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the ((copyedit)) tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa ^TALK 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

And thanks also for co-nominating me - I appreciate the trust you've placed in me. I promise to do my best to live up to the trust you've placed in me. TFOWR 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you can go on a blocking spree! Seriously though I though that went pretty well - WP:100 was hit, there wasn't any scary past to dig up, the wikibreak didn't seem to bother many, and two moved from neutral to support and one from oppose to neutral following discussion. Fences&Windows 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've, uh, I've started! I honestly thought I'd hit a few days without using the mop, but apparently not. Aye, I was surprised about WP:100, but to be honest I've been surprised throughout at the level of trust the community has in me - something I don't intend to blow. Thanks again, TFOWR 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. You know, perhaps rowspan should be deprecated across Wikipedia, or at least discouraged? There's no mention of rowspan at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables). Fences&Windows 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:TABLES##Formatting, end of second paragraph; merged cells refers to row/col spans. It will never work: it really makes little sense as spanning rather assumes the order. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kewl beans. Like a lot of things, rowspan will have legitimate uses, but gratuitous usages are inappropriate. There are trade-offs in most things, of course, and the hygiene of the wiki-text is important. It's the coal face of editing. I'd not noticed the omission, there; I'll have a fresh look. fyi, the color 'grey' in your sig should properly be 'gray'. Americans wrote the spec. It's working for you only because browsers are forgiving of improper markup. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, browsers are helping the fight against American cultural imperialism. You can take the "e" out of my cold dead hands! Fences&Windows 14:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I agree with you, on the broader issues. My understanding of all the American misspellings is that they originate in a nineteenth century fit of cultural pique. My concern is the validity of the markup you're placing in the database; it's demonstrably invalid.^{(scroll down a bit, for the warnings re 'grey'} See the diff for this edit; I've just changed the above sig to use color:#808080;. This is the correct hex-code for the colour and avoids the cultural-hegemon issue. How 'bout using that? ;) nb: you've already succumbed to the misspelling of the keyword 'color'; I've not checked fursur, but I expect most browsers would not be so forgiving there. Jack Merridew 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curse your pedantry! I shall use color:#808080;, for those using crappy browsers. Fences&Windows 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not just the usual browsers; other user agents will be parsing the wiki-text and the generated content (which can vary by user agent). There all sorts of user agents, such as the one that supported user-gestures in mid-air in Minority Report. More mundanely, there are hand phones and GoogleBot, that are more focused on reading content than whatever ornamentation the content has applied to it. And some user agents support printers which often invoke alternate stylesheets that may, for example, seek to not waste ink. Embedded colours can serve to thwart such site-wide conventions. Don't forget the trailing ';' at the end of CSS properties. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

I havve added a new section on the Brain Warp article called Sister Products. I was wondering if you could improve the Brain shift section and add a picture?--78.150.49.200 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Sam, your obsession with these electronic audio games is quite astonishing! Nice to see a more constructive approach to editing, even if you are indef blocked... You need to work from reliable sources more, rather than your own knowledge, and you need to work on the spelling and grammar. Fences&Windows 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - you did some really helpful admining on the entry about Johann Hari a few years ago and I was hoping you could help again. Somebody is trying to insert highly libelous material claiming he somehow regards paedophilia as a legitimate sexuality. It's a blatant violation of BLP. I've taken it out but could you keep an eye on it, and maybe have a word with the user inserting it?

Best wishes

DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by David r from meth productions (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will keep an eye on it. I've dropped a note to the editor who included it and made a note on the talk page. It's not really libellous as such, just poorly sourced and given undue weight. Fences&Windows 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do you claim that quoting Hari's own words is not well sourced material -> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YuuDxktbBr4J:www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/remember-paedophiles-are-people-too-601651.html+%22hard+truth+that+we+on+the+left+will+have+to+accept,+too:+paedophilia+is+an+intractable+sexual+orientation,+like+heterosexuality+or+homosexuality,+that+cannot+be+trained+out+of+a+person%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk or do you claim that such claims do not have weight? Either way you are WRONG ! And it was very bad thing that Hari wrote what I quote. He should know that what he wrote was WRONG and he should have apologized for saying it! And you should know that hiding wrong things is wrong, too! Or do you prefer denial of WRONG things when you see them? DancingPhilosopher 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs)

No, I claim that the comments from the blog were poorly sourced. You cannot use amateur blogs to say things about living people. And you give undue weight to this issue because you have cherry-picked it out of all the hundreds of things Hari has written about because you think it is important - no secondary reliable sources have commented on this, so we can't include it. When you state that "he should know that what he wrote was WRONG", you are demonstrating that you are editing his bio for the wrong reasons. WP:SOAPBOX makes clear that Wikipedia is not a campaign tool. And Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs", see WP:GREATWRONGS. Fences&Windows 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused by your response to DancingPhilosopher. Regarding my allegedly "poorly sourced" comments in the blog entry, I cite a peer-reviewed and internationally-respected academic paper as the foundation for my arguments; in what way is this "poorly-sourced"? And why am I not a "reliable source"? My novels have been multiply published and acclaimed internationally, and I have published various journalism in UK national broadsheets, magazines and periodicals. I believe this issue is not necessarily a matter of undue weight and is germane to Hari's Wikipedia page because there is an implied claim - in the section of the wiki page that references his criticism of Fry and Bennett - that he is some kind of defender of the abused, when in actuality amongst survivors and their advocates he is the opposite. Matthewbranton (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That prior mention of the HuffPost blog was cherry picking and undue weight, I'm not going to excuse that. The correct response is to remove it, not to try to balance it with other cherry-picked material. Understand that we have to stick to very stick rules on biographies, see WP:BLP. In particular, WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." So this is a bright line rule. I'm also uneasy about you arguing for your own opinion to be included in the article, please have a good read of WP:COI. Your interest here is to criticise Hari, not to improve the article about him. Fences&Windows 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would question your repeated assertions of "undue weight" - Hari's statement (presented not as opinion but as unassailable fact) that paedophilia is an "intractable sexual orientation" which should be viewed in the same way as hetero- or homosexuality has profoundly damaging implications for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, both therapeutically and in terms of legal redress, and for society as a whole in terms of public protection and judicial treatment of child-sex offenders. I'm not "arguing for [my] own opinion to be included", I am questioning your response to DancingPhilosopher. As for your other points, particularly BLP, "sources of material" seems a debatable phrase to me (isn't its spirit - as opposed to its letter - more to do with biographical information than debate?), as does your assertion that I seek "not to improve" public understanding of Hari's work. I shall be particularly interested to hear your response to this last point.Matthewbranton (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll explain my point about "undue weight" by quoting directly from the policy as the relevant part might not have been obvious: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic [...] in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." We have to consider what coverage Hari's comments have received in secondary reliable sources, not what the response was in the blogosphere or whether it personally offended us. The discussion about whether there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources in proceeding on the talk page.

Your assertion that "Hari's statement [...] has profoundly damaging implications" is a view you are entitled to, but one we cannot take into account when editing the article: "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this." (WP:NOTOPINION). You don't know my view on Hari's statement or it's implications and I'm not going to reveal it as my view is wholly irrelevant to how we should edit his biography. If you do wish to improve Wikipedia, I look forward to you helping write comprehensive and neutral articles on diverse topics, rather than pursuing a particular agenda.

The restriction on not using self-published sources in BLPs (other than those written by the subject) is absolute. You may confirm this by asking for advice at the biographies of living people noticeboard. Fences&Windows 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did RfC it in the end. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just wanted to drop by because I read your comment at the AfD. I wanted to respond a bit, because it seems like you're little upset (and maybe to prove I'm not a "new puritan"? :)) I feel that all of the coverage referenced in the article is just an offshoot of the Tiger Woods coverage ("Rachel Uchitel, Tiger Woods' Rumored Girlfriend, 'Felt Very Lost' After 9/11", "Who is Rachel Uchitel?: A brief biographical timeline of Tiger Woods' alleged mistress", etc.). Where is the significant coverage of her outside of that? I just don't see it and if we remove the one event, she's not notable. Anyway, I wanted to at least give you my two cents. Cheers! TNXMan 02:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm upset, I'm fed up of the Biography Euthanasia Squadron. I don't care for Rachel Uchitel; I do care for systematic abuse of policy. There's significant coverage of her outside this, you just all refuse to recognise that. It is like doublethink. Surely you can realise that there is coverage of her beyond the articles cited in the article? She passes the WP:GNG on coverage from before the Woods scandal alone, see [10] (and that's just what Google News finds). Of course she'd have failed BLP1E after 9/11, but then she became a BLP2+E afterwards. Fences&Windows 11:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know: I take offence at your comments, which degrade the proper function of that process by ramping up the drama and misleading other users. You seem to be quite willing to support a political stunt. It is reprehensible. Tony (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're meant to sit up and take notice. Stop being so careless and actually seek a proper consensus for this delinking, or you will get blocked for disruption. You're not special. So no apology. Fences&Windows 11:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And neither are you anything special. I did take notice. It was entirely unnecessary for ANI to be involved, and as I have pointed out, it has the clear appearance of a political stunt—one that I believe you were unwise to throw yourself into so whole-heartedly. My issue is that you are allowing your personal opinions to intrude into your posts at a place where admins are expected to provide balanced views, and avoid unnecessary threats. Here you go again, threatening. It was unacceptable behaviour the first time, and is compounded by your repetition of it. And you couch your post in terms of blunt orders and a tone that borders on the uncivil—actually, it's insulting; people might take more notice of you if you observed the usual courtesies. It is particularly important that you do so in your role as an administrator. Perhaps you might read WP:ADMIN carefully. Thank you. Tony (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not being uncivil, so please focus on the argument and not me or my comments: as you say, I'm not anything special either. I only made two brief comments on this at ANI, and I've never been involved in any discussions of linking/delinking policy as far as I recall, so my comments are those of an outsider to the debate. You'll notice that other uninvolved editors and admins have also criticised your approach. Saying you may get blocked is not a threat, it's a prediction: remember that you were already sanctioned by ArbCom for such actions once already. I'm no fan of overlinking, but you're caricaturing those who disagree with you as wishing to link items they don't wish to, which is not a reasoned approach. Whether a link is valid or not can be very subjective and sometimes a decision best left to editors and readers of specific articles, not something to be dealt with by automated scripts. Please take a step back and consider whether some of the opposition you're running up against in your campaign of mass delinking might have a point. Fences&Windows 12:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a post I can respect. From looking at your user page, I wonder why we are bickering—there is a lot in common. Perhaps I felt bullied by you ...

The ArbCom case concerned date autoformatting; while there are vague similarities, there are significant differences between that technical issue and overlinking. The style guides have said for some time that major geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should not be linked (I'm paraphrasing closely from memory). They are well accepted, yet a few editors (two, really) take what are considered extreme views on linking the commonest country- and city-names (but have come around on other aspects of overlinking), and do not accept the rules set out in the style guides. These editors complain loudly every now and again, and write long essays on my talk page and that of others. They have belly-ached a few times at WT:LINK but have not been remotely successful in gaining consensus for changing the status quo. This is why I found your comment above about seeking proper consensus possibly biased, but I now see that you're more neutral than that.

In fact, the automation I could do without: most of my gnoming work involves sifting through and manually unlinking really really silly links; editors (and I'm sure readers, if they thought consciously about it) are now right behind this, whereas when I started at WP in 2005, linking was endemic and undisciplined, and you wouldn't have dared to unlink anything. The script was developed specifically for popular entertainment articles, which are hugely overlinked. I have raised the matter at WikiProject Films, for example, and people are generally very supportive of cleaning up their articles (it's like, shoulder-shrugging "why not?"). I have received queries from only one or two editors concerning the actual items delinked, over a long period. User:Colonies Chris has received more, but perhaps he gnomes more than I do. I find it wearing, since Ckatz, as much as I admire her editing skills (as I've told her on quite a few occasions) tends to personalise the matter and to avoid discussing substantive issues. For saying this, I will be absolutely pilloried when she arrives on this page very soon. I don't know how to deal with it, yet I would really like to collaborate with her generally. When you say "you're caricaturing those who disagree with you as wishing to link items they don't wish to", I don't know why there is any doubt that these editors wish to link country-names. It appears to be a continual pressure. Have I got something fundamental wrong?

Perhaps the answer is to determine whether the status quo can be made more specific WRT the linking of city and country names, together with Ckatz, N-HH and A. di M.—a very helpful editor at WP:LINK who proposed a change only about a month ago. But I am pessimistic that Ckatz and N-HH would accept anything less than the linking of UK, US, Canada, Australia, New York, Los Angeles, at least once in every article. I do not believe that editors or readers want the linking system diluted right at the top of many many articles in this way, when the possibility of a click is ... just about zero.

One thing does unite us all: we all believe we are acting to strengthen the wikilinking system. It is ironic, isn't it? Tony (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect, I believe that you have misread WP:SNOW. Whilst it is an essay, it essentially speaks of bureaucracy and pointed behaviour as a bad thing. A great example of bureaucracy is rambling on using Wikipedia rules as a cover. Both the IP and Justa Punk were guilty of this and they were wrecking the AfD in the process. I was trying to rescue the AfD, and my suggestion was to close and relist. It was only relisted and that was when I went with the collapse instead because I believed that the problem had not been overcome. Now since then I have noticed that in fact other people have now come on and commented - so I was in fact wrong when I said to Phantom Steve that the mess above the reslisting would discourage participation in the AfD. I hope you understand my intent as honourable and trying to assist a rightful process of Wikipedia. AinslieL (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, you were acting with the best of intentions. And yet, hiding other people's comments at AfD -even when lengthy and a bit irritating- isn't a good idea. Very few admins ever do collapse or remove AfD comments. Was that AfD a "foregone conclusion from the start"? That's what WP:SNOW, a fine essay, is about; the AfD was relisted, suggesting that the relisting admin didn't find it such a foregone conclusion. You want WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY not WP:SNOW, but reducing bureaucracy isn't a defence when you cross the line into stifling discussion. Sometimes we're too bold and we need to reign ourselves in. That's not a bad thing, it's just part of the process of Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 14:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

Please could you upload picture for the Bop It article? As you can see, there are no pictures for the following products:

• Bop It 2000 Re-releaes model
• Bratz Bop It
• Bop It Blast
• Bop It Download
• Bop It! 2009
• Bop-It! Bounce
• Zing It
• Top It
• Super Click-It by MGA Entertainment

Please could you upload theese pictures and add them to the Bop It article.--92.28.172.212 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the sources, and what are the fair-use rationales? The pictures will all need to meet WP:NFCC. We do not include pictures gratuitously. Fences&Windows 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can upload them from the Internet.--92.28.172.212 (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not your puppet. I'm not doing all the work here. Fences&Windows 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, re-lack of references, there were references, in fact the article was much longer and well referenced, but if you look at the article history you will see that User:JzG has done six edits on the article. I was in touch with User:MC10 as per the threads message history on my page, and they were on the verge of accepting the article. As this is a page which JzG has deleted before, I don't know why he has done these edits. I asked you and UserMC10 for your advice. I would prefer if you could help me to create an objective non-promtional article. I trust your ability to be fair and objective in this matter. Please help. Am I allowed to undo Guys edits? I did want to cut some stuff as mentioned in the subjects thread on my talk page message. Aspland11 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy can be quite uncompromising in his editing. Blogs can be acceptable as reliable sources if they are part of a news agency or are otherwise known to have editorial oversight, so the Williamette Week blog is fine by me, ditto the Williamette Radio Workshop. Possibly the Northside Festival site and the WK site, but neither are really independent so don't help contribute to notability. Nyctaper looks unreliable, I'd not use that source. DJ Ola's site might be OK as an external link. Brookyln Heights Courier article doesn't mention Radio23. I would avoid adding back the content on philosophy, it waxed lyrical without really conveying any information, and repeating a big list of the types of music played or the artists interviewed really falls foul of the fact that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate or a directory. Fences&Windows 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I can remove the link you said looks unreliable, no problem. Re- the Brooklyn Heights Courier, the article mentions Radio23 in paragraph eight. I believe I cited it for DJ 9-Eleven Thesaurus, a youth-group collective who DJ on Radio23. Philosophy can go if need be. The list of musical styles reflects the content on the WFMU page, which Radio23 is related to and shares an archive with. Does that need to go? User:MC10 suggested I shorten the list of artists features, which I wrote back to them indicating my willingness to do so, but it can go if you think it totally neccessary. I am ready to undertake all changes that you see fit. Let me know what you think. What can I do? If the page meets the criteria and you see it as fit and valid, can it be afforded some sort of protection? Thanks Aspland11 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd include some brief mention of the genres played and the artists interviewed (the most prominent, especially if mentioned in outside sources). Exhaustive lists are off-putting for a reader. The festival coverage is OK though. No page gets protection against deletion other than by arguing that it meets the content criteria. It must be verified (or verifiable) using reliable sources, contain no original research, be neutral, and not contain any material about living people that might be objectionable. Once those hurdles are passed, you need to think about notability. The general notability guide is that the topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A specific guideline for organisations is also at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Pointing to what is in WMFU's article is a weak strategy, read WP:OTHER. That tactic may lead some editors to gut the WMFU article, it definitely needs some work. If editors come to a consensus that the coverage of Radio23 in reliable sources is insufficient to demonstrate notability, an alternative to deletion would be to merge the content to Media in Portland, Oregon#Radio, with a redirect from Radio23 to that section. Fences&Windows 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

• particularly the first bullet point if you don't have time to read the whole reply. thx

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

• waiting to see

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa, though I wondered where it was going to finish up! I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations. Had to give you a bit of a hard time, it's not a true RfA otherwise. It's not called Hell Week for nothing. Fences&Windows 14:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Epic job on dry needling. Simply epic work on an article that really needed it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, ta! Fences&Windows 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "imaginary friends" section on your userpage, with the drive-by tagging pastel box, is the most hilarious thing I've seen recently. Just perfect! Mind if I steal it? The footnote to Carl Sagan as "citation" is a touch of genius. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, go right ahead. Fences&Windows 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now on a subpage at User:Fences_and_windows/Imaginary_friends. Fences&Windows 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some two weeks ago you closed an AN/I thread which I initiated and told me that you are prepared to take action once the problem re-occured. It did today.

• previous AN/I thread
• User in question: PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk · contribs)
• Also edited logged out using the following IP: 78.8.83.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• diff linking above IP and account: account signing IP edit

Today's disruption:

• at History of Gdańsk, they changed all instances of "Danzig" to "Gdansk" despite prior warning that this is against community consensus as established by the Gdansk-vote (the respective Gdansk-vote-template was delivered by HerkusMonte in the first edit to PN's talk page, section below the welcome template [11], also subsequent warnings)
• likewise, at Daugavpils, they changed the historical names to the Polish spelling and described the town as a gift Poland made to Latvia
• almost identical postings to mine [12] and Marek69's [13] talkpages, where they verbatim
  • state that they are a nationalist
  • openly display their battleground mentality

I thus repeat my AN/I request of 10 June that the user be indef'd. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked them for a week, leaping straight to indef blocking is rare. When they come back off the block I'll try to keep an eye on them. Fences&Windows 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I wonder why you think that an overtly nationalist spa account will ever be able to edit constructively any article where their nationalist views inherently prevent them from following wp:npov and wp:consensus. There is a good essay called WP:PLAGUE about nationalists on wikipedia, written by sysop Moreschi, which also contains a section "the cure". I respect your good faith approach, it shows that you are a good person, but with nationalists this won't work. If you hesitate to indef block, there is also another option that works equally well - an indef topic ban from areas where the nationalist has nothing but an agenda to push. Sincerely Skäpperöd (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People may change their minds about editing, vandals and POV warriors have turned into useful contributors before. I know it's rare, but it happens. I don't do that much work in areas of nationalist conflict, but I read that essay a while ago - I will refresh myself. I will drop a note to try to reason with them. Fences&Windows 09:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had previously participated in an Admin recall petition for Herostratus, at the user's talk page. This process has now started. It is ongoing as an RFA page, for admin recall, at: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As he has asked admins not to comment, I will refrain from doing so. I did however remove a personal attack against him; if anyone wishes to discuss this action, please email me. Fences&Windows 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoax? , mentioned at the BLPN looks like a speedy to me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Miletto please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She doesn't exist, and now neither does the article. Fences&Windows 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Fences and windows. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]