I noticed your comments about James Hoffmann. Can you please explain why you feel that way? Thanks, Baileyquarter (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP1E:"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry... If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." All he is known for is being World Barista Champion in 2007, classic WP:BLP1E material. He has also not received significant coverage in reliable sources per my Google News search http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22James+Hoffmann%22+coffee&cf=all so he doesn't meet general notability guidelines either. Fences&Windows 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Your thoughts are persuasive. I have chosen to nominate this article for deletion based on your rationale. Thank you. Baileyquarter (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Hoffmann, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hoffmann (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Baileyquarter (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you check and let me know if this is a good article to tag for ARS? I've never tagged before, so don't want to tag something that might not be a good case. Thx. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It look rescuable. I initially thought that as it had seemingly good references it wouldn't be suitable - adding a rescue tag to a well-sourced article is kind of vote stacking - but there is a dispute over the quality of the references, so ARS members may well be able to help with the sourcing. See Wikipedia:RESCUE#What_the_Rescue_template_is_for. Fences&Windows 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'd make a fine admin, and I wonder if you'd like me to nominate you as such.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blimey, that came out of the blue. Thank you very much for the suggestion; I think it's a little early for me to think about picking up the mop. I've only been doing a significant level of editing for just over 6 months, and I still have to learn all the intricacies of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm also not quite ready for all the Wikidrama that might come my way; I do sneak a look at AN/I sometimes and I'm happy to confront vandals and other miscreants, but at my own leisure for now. I also need to keep my Wikiaddiction under control, and I've been lately thinking about trying to get more article writing done and do a bit less debating. I'll think about it again in a few months. Cheers. Fences&Windows 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I been Wikistalking.  :) Okie, no problem, good luck when you decide to run (as I think you will, in time).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fences. I'm not an AFD regular but, when I do wander over, tend towards the bin it side. This article was one of those occasional randoms that catch my attention. I checked it out, agreed with your results and went Keep accordingly. Having just gone back to check progress, I saw the comment by Drawnsome. Way out of order. I'm torn between saying so on the page itself - particularly as, by also claiming that Timmeh didn't check the sources, he's implying that any Keep votes wouldn't have either - and keeping shtum to avoid dramah (which I can't stand) particularly as I rather suspect DS could be after some of that very thing. Anyway, FWIW, I really just wanted to let you know that this nasty, cheap shot upon on you (and Timmeh) pissed me off. Best, Plutonium27 (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Drawn Some isn't a fan of the ARS, despite using the rescue tag themselves before. AFD can generate more heat than light, unfortunately. Fences&Windows 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bloody awful article in it's original form. Well done with the expansion and added citations. I've added a !vote in support of keeping it. The name of the article concerns me. Mayhap it should be moved to "Hands Off the People of Iran‎ (Political Group)" or something similar? What say you? Crafty (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the difference to most editors is that I've actually heard of the group due to my politics, though I'm not a member. I was surprised not to see more coverage in mainstream sources, but the media has its biases. I'm not sure about the name as adding bracketed terms is for disambiguation, and we should generally use the most recognisable name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Fences&Windows 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. Crafty (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. FYI the reason I mentioned AWI and HOPI in this discussion is they were the articles wikilinked from The Commune, so I assumed they were the "related articles" Tznkai was referring to. I'm not advocating their deletion, though both are (were?) in need of copyediting. It occurs to me that as "The Commune" was deleted before the thread started, it might not be apparent why I'd mentioned the other groups at all. Euryalus (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, cheers. Fences&Windows 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is very much appreciated! Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've been thinking that it might be a good idea to create an article on Protest in the United Kingdom. I've started (very badly) to collect some relevant info on User:Smartse/Protest in the United Kingdom but before diving in I just wondered if you think making it is a good idea. I think it would be useful to collect all of these articles together and also create a list of laws relevant to protest in the UK. I guessed that you might be interested from your work on the G20 protest article. As a more experienced editor some help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Smartse (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's a good idea. I've been thinking about making Policing of protests, but I've not got around to it. I like the idea of starting it in user space, a much more cautious and measured approach than some! I will see if I can help write it. Fences&Windows 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you take a look? I thought it's an article worth saving, so added some refs that I could find, not sure how to get refs for games etc. It's also been flagged for rescue after my efforts (not by me), and I think it's a fairly good topic worth saving, especially given my fascination with the guy owing to Asterix. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))Reply[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))Reply[reply]

Yeah, I misread your edit summary here. Sorry about that. Theleftorium 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. My summary could have been better, I was in the process of removing all the Icon Group/Webster's references I could find. Fences&Windows 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. As a major contributor to this article, I thought you would want to know that it has been placed on hold as a result of its GA Sweeps Review, which can be found here. –Whitehorse1 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey,

A newish user User:'uSgheb prodded Hands Off the People of Iran. I've removed the prod tag and left a note on the users talkpage. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Crafty (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, it survived the AfD! How odd to prod it just after an AfD discussion. Fences&Windows 00:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most odd, considering the user seems not to have any other significant contributions. Nevertheless, one always gives the benefit of the doubt. Also congrats on salvaging that article. ;) Crafty (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for heads-up regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxic Skies. As you might have guessed, I disagree (and have added some additional argument there), but that's what discussion is for. --bonzi (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dear Fences and windows,

To avoid an editing war with you I have revisited the above and have actually included their own website along with the article from the Sunday Business Post as references. I would like to politely bring to your attention that I find your use of the term "British Isles" in your user boxes offensive. I do however respect your right to say what you want, while disagreeing with what you have to say. Please accept my admiration for the amount of contributions that you have made and hope our paths may cross again.

Regards,

Skreen (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd hope that reverting to remove POV wording and explaining why wouldn't spark off an edit war. I realise that some Irish people dislike the term British Isles, but I find the term to be the best description of this North Atlantic archipelago and I have no British nationalist leanings - far from it. No offense is intended by this name, I'm very fond of Ireland and the Irish people; the use of that user box with the Irish flag is an allusion to my own Irish heritage. See British Isles naming dispute for more on this issue. Perhaps Anglo-Celtic Isles would be a more neutral descriptor, but it's unlikely to catch on. Fences&Windows 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rewording is much better. I've made some slight edits to it. Fences&Windows 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason for the "insult" was for dragging up events that have no baring on every day life nor the topic however i concede i should not have said that particular phrase. i do hope you have warned the other editor who is using the wiki as a soapbox and was pushing a POV that was not neutral, i was merely evening out some of the “facts” being thrown around.

On top of which i shall not be accused of being a British nationalist - how dare you call me such, i am highly offended by such terms. If you are warning people about being civil i hope you realise the seriousness of labelling someone akin to one of these BNP nazis!

I have not pushed any POV, as other editors have noted the term is a legitimate geographical term in use all over the world and it does not imply ownership. The UK government does not assert ownership over Ireland and by mentioning these facts is not pushing an un-neutral point of view. Considering the other editor brought atrocities, that are completely unrelevant to the article, it did seem worthwhile to point out that they have been committed by both sides. By not relevant to the subject i admit, stating such is not pushing one point of view nor being a “nationalist”. I would suggest the fact you have accused me of such highlights your own point of view pushing...--86.4.87.120 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, may i just add i find it very intresting that you choose to warn me in regards to using the wiki has a soapbox (which i didnt) and pushing nationalist POV (which i didnt) however you didnt warn the pervious editor. Unless of course that was you hiding under an annon i find the situation laughable because of your hypocrisy. No that isnt an "personal attack" just an observation how you let someone sprout "irish nationalist propaganda" everywhere, you dont say anything to, but a British person (who you label a NAZI!) you condem! Prehaps you sir should read the articles you linked me to...--86.4.87.120 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding this [1], please read my response: as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms again you misread my original nomination, I excluded these countries in the search, please take care in reading nominations before criticising in future, thanks. LibStar (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I misread it. You could still take more care in searching, finding information about these relationships need careful searching, and focussing searches better will help in that. Your whole approach to these deletions is far too aggressive, including the badgering of editors who disagree with you - I agree that articles with no possibility of meaningful content need deletion, but you are being overzealous and too dismissive of content that editors are finding. Take a step back. Fences&Windows 16:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you should also read my response to your comments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Maldivian relations, perhaps you need to take a step back before jumping to conclusions on any other editors. I wasn't exactly badgering in that case but pointing out how 1 editor immediately endorsed another keep argument (and I know this editor well and he never !votes like that). it is purely your opinion that I am far too aggressive, many editors have agreed my approach others haven't. the only material that I am dismissive of is primary sources and trivia like sporting events. if new significant evidence is found to prove notability I more than welcome it.LibStar (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

furthermore if at the conclusion of the AfD, substantial new evidence proves notability I fully accept the result. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually JUSTAVOTE doesn't apply as they were saying they agreed with the argument of another editor. That's also covered by PERNOMINATOR, but arguments to avoid is just an essay, not policy, so I still stand by my comment that you're badgering other editors. Admins can spot poor arguments for themselves without you needing to counter every keep !vote. Why not try working with editors before nominating for deletion, to foster a collaborative environment? Fences&Windows 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've patrolled 100s of these bilateral articles and I can tell you most I haven't nominated. a few weeks ago, an editor made a good effort of merging a lot of these stubs since they only had limited info like embassies but he's since been told to stop including by an admin. When something is borderline notable, I've tagged it with ((notability)) and guess what? Not in any instance ever has any editor attempted to improve an article with this tag. I can only draw the conclusion that it then needs to go to AfD as its borderline in my opinion. the problem exists that 1000s of these stubs were made with no attempt to increase them past stub stage or consider actual notability. LibStar (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what you exactly what you want to discuss which really needs going over again? Read the edit summaries, read the policies on WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRUFT. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, it is a collection of encyclopedic information. Much of this fringe cruft was placed in the article by anti-English, SNP-nationalist MacRusgail. I remedied the fringe cruft. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whenever edits come off blatantly against the rules, there is no reason why not to revert or remove them. After all, that is the stated logic of those who persecuted Yorkshirian and persist in reminding him that he is at their mercy today. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh? I was just reverting the removal of sections of Politics of England, and that's been resolved on the talk page; one section is gone and another has been edited down. No persecuting here, move along, nothing to see. Fences&Windows 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I notice you voted on an extremely slow-running merge proposal of the above two articles. I don't know if you're watching it, so I'm alerting you here. I've made a suggestion to merge both to political scandals in the United Kingdom (currently a redirect). This would allow the combined article to become more than just a list, and allow coverage of a notable term. Since an admin will have to move it, I'm looking for consensus. What do you think? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that! Slow moving is right. Yes, I agree to merge both to the redirect. Fences&Windows 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! It's my first one! AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Fences and windows I don't particularly mind one way or the other whether the Overpopulation article has a short preamble or not, and am not one of those people who take it personally when someone reverts one of my edits[2] - in this particular case I was expecting someone to within a day or two - it wasn't a great surprise.

The only thing is that I do genuinely believe that what is there is far too long and makes it harder to use the article. The point is that it's a fairly static section of text (though does occasional get an edit) so after reading the preamble for the first time it's a bit dull to keep having to scroll past it before reaching the table of contents so you can click on the section you want to read.

I made quite a few edits to this article a few months ago, as well as created and added a couple of graphs, and am glad to say they are still all their (at least for now. Sometimes you need to be away from something for a while then return to it to notice something like how clumsy and inconvenient the preamble to this article is! Unless you decide to reinstate my new heading to tidy it up, as it was for a couple of days, would you be interested in some sort of compromise - e.g. shorten the pre-amble right down to just a definition of "overpopulation" and create a separate section immediately after it called "carrying capacity" or whatever?

Thanks.

Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know it was a new change, just that when I looked at the page I saw what appeared to go against WP:LEAD. All articles have lead sections that are meant to summarise the article; creating a section heading for a lead doesn't help and goes against the manual of style. If the lead is too long, then cut it down. If it contains material not elsewhere in the article, move the material to another section and summarise it in the lead if it is important. Leads are meant for readers coming to the article afresh, not for frequent editors, so it being a bit dull to read on the umpteenth time isn't really a problem. Fences&Windows 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I have long respected the work you do around here and was thrilled to have your support. Your kinds words brought a smile to my face and brightened my day.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is 93% support some kind of record? Well done! Fences&Windows 17:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There actually have been a few unanimous ones, but someone did inform be it was the 54th highest support ratio in "modern times", so yah I am pretty proud of it. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah fair enough! Good to know it was not just made up. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should've left this note yesterday, since you weighed in with an additional support of the prod for this article (which was declined unfortunately) a few days ago. AfD is is at; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catastrophe (book). Tarc (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found one more piece that I didn't see earlier, here, a trivial mention thanking him for providing support to work in a niche research area. In Indian universities, a Vice Chancellor is the important position, a pro-chancellor is an appointee of the donor or funding organization. As it stands now, we have two trivial mentions in RS resources and the primary ref in terms of the Univ literature, nothing else, so the article can't even be stubbed with RS resources. What do you think? cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: On Kadva Patidar, I didn't do the redirect myself because of the copyvio - but couldn't G12 since the book isn't online yet, forgot to note that as I normally do.

Ah, whoops. "Based on" doesn't necessarily mean copyvio though.

I can find mention in some press releases from Shobhit Uni,[3][4][5] PR from NICE,[6] his LinkedIn page,[7] a mention as "ex-vice-chancellor of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Agricultural University",[8]. He's also a patron of a bodybuilding association:[9]. I can't say this all adds up to notability as most of the article would be based on primary sources or press releases. Fences&Windows 17:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a final look at this and maybe take to AfD this weekend if I can't create a stub outside of RS. Also, can you take a look at Vaishnavism in Daivajnas and let me know what you think? It's a tar baby that came out of a content dispute in Daivajna; the Daivajna talk page is testament to that, the only content on this page, is content rejected on that talk page. I posted a not suggesting deletion on this talk page, but no response yet. Also checked with another editor from Wikiproject India and Hinduism, same opinion. I'll probably take to AfD, not PROD that one. (some of those discussions were deleted instead of archived, like this, all comments from one user - Sonar shet). cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look at the Daivajna/Vaishnavism pages. Er. I find these ethno-religious disputes hard to fathom. So much certainty on each side, so much passion, but so few reliable sources, and more heat than light in general. I can find a book snippet that says "The Daivadnya have two sects, ie Smarta and Vaishnava"[10] Other than that, I'm finding very little on the topic in reliable sources. I agree that the Vaishnavism in Daivajnas page is a POV fork. Interesting etmyology, that daivajna means "one who knows the divine", i.e. a diviner. Fences&Windows 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, when I started editing Wikipedia, I thought I'd focus on Cricket, but I think these India related articles need more attention, ones that shouldn't be deleted, and ones that should be. And the absurdities are endless, like this one. As for this particular article, the main one has a section on Vaishnavism with references, don't see a need to create a separate article with nothing more than book/opinion extracts. So, off to AfD for that. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirected one, and took the other to AfD. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi, thanks for your message. Firstly, my apologies on the amount of time it has taken for me to get back to you. I do have a good excuse in that my cousin has just had a wedding, so I have only had about 1 minute Internet connection over the last three days... tis been quite relaxing ;).
Anyhow, to answer your question; no, I don't think there is such a list, there used to be an abuse filter which picked them up, but this was turned off, following a discussion over whether removing prods was really "abuse", and if the filter should be used for picking it up since it isn't. The bot picks up almost all prod removals (it logs them at User:SDPatrolBot/prodResults), but only when it has been runnning (so for example, because I have been away, and therefore haven't been running the bot, the prods removed over the last three days haven't been logged). Hope that answers your question :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to apologise! A deprod list would be useful, to see if the articles can be improved if the deprodder didn't do it themselves, or to catch inappropriate deprods - such as serial deprodders - and send the articles to AfD if warranted. Do you know how such a list could be created, or how to go about sounding out thoughts about such a list? A guess the prod and prod patrolling Wikiprojects would be a starting place. Fences&Windows 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I don't think it's inappropriate for the edit filter, but other users disagree, you can find the discussion at this page. Also, you may be interested in a bot used with Wikipedia:Article alerts, which tracks prods removed from pages about certain topics. So basically, I think the way to do it is through a bot, or WP:EF - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's a coincidence, I was just looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts and saw deprod alerts. Fences&Windows 00:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message gotten. NO problem. Torkmann (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]