Hello Fences and windows

I still think you'd make an excellent administrator, and I would like to repeat my offer to nominate you for that position.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it has been a few months hasn't it. I've been thinking about whether to go for adminship, and I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of policy. I'm happy to be nominated. I'll probably need a little time to prepare. Fences&Windows 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know on my talk page when you wish me to go ahead, then.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if you'd like a co-nominator ... Black Kite 11:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm giving Wikipedia:Administrators a good read, won't be long. Fences&Windows 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fences and windows. Take your time answering the questions, this is not a good area for rushing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ready for the transclusion? No rush if not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is no drill.  ;)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<--Good luck! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gah, you're supposed to sign to indicate acceptance of the nomination!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes. I didn't drink enough coffee today, it seems. Fences&Windows 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good deal - you're nearly at 100, with barely an oppose. That's a lot of community trust! :) BOZ (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6/9 parties have indicated acceptance to proceed. Please indicate your acceptance or rejection here: MedCab Case here - indicate acceptance or rejection of mediation process

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technocrane what about a merge with Crane shot ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. It's certainly not the only crane camera set-up, nor the only apparently notable one. The Louma Camera Crane also won an Oscar at the same time and an Emmy in 1990. Fences&Windows 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I can see the value of a stand alone article, lets see how it develops. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have made a charge against me in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) that I am assuming bad faith in what I said there. I am assuming good faith in that you are trying to write a usable guideline. I however, think you have made many errors in it. How is that assuming bad faith? DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I consider this an example of use of ambiguous phrases and weasel words to evade (or possibly bias) the issues." This statement sounds like you consider that the writers of the proposal are deliberately evading issues and biasing it to suit their own agendas, but I shouldn't have used to phrase "assuming bad faith", I should have just explained why I disagreed with your statement. Your pointing out of errors and loose wording is much appreciated, I don't think I or any of the other contributors were under the impression that the proposal was ideal. Fences&Windows 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I have just commented there, I think the idea of using such a proposal instead of WP NOT has considerable merit, and I like the recent suggestion of DustFormsWords as a new approach, though it doesnt cover everything.Theresponses to my qys indicate that the ambiguous words do indeed bias the issues--for example, that the wording "some" newspapers can be seen to exclude them all. If I comment on this further, it will be there or at the RfA. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't be on Wikipedia again till Sunday. Fences&Windows 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

…has demonstrated that the community feels that you are able to use the wikipedia maintenance tools to help the project, congratulations! If you have not already, please take a look at Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, and similar pages, and feel free to ask any one of us for advice. Congratulations again. -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on having your RfA passed! Now get out your flamethrower and work! work! work! :-) — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They don't hand out flamethrowers for..like..years now. The best you can get is a mop drenched in some petroleum and a lighter.

Oh, congrats btw, if you need help with your new mop, feel free to bug me. ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stupid Global Financial Crisis! It's closing down all the flamethrower manufacturers! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! Another excellent admin to add to the group! Frmatt (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woohoo! :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best wishes and congrats! Majoreditor (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats and enjoy using your new mop! -SpacemanSpiff 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats! The thing that should not be 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to hell. Tan | 39 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks everyone. I hope I'll fulfil the trust placed in me, and I'll take things slowly! Fences&Windows 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, I'm really glad your RfA passed. Aside from your awesome credentials, it also means I'm no longer the most junior admin on Wikipedia. :) -- Atama頭 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on earning the tools. I'm sure you'll make good use of them. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you get to do all those cool adminny things like blocking each other and yourselves and deleting the main page - on the downside there's probably a bit of work involved too. Congratulations.   pablo_hablo. 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BEANS. Don't give me ideas. Fences&Windows 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done, I think that was fairly conclusive :) Black Kite 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! Location (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations and well deserved! --AFriedman (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats! And good luck with the tools. Timmeh 03:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done! I know you'll be a great asset! GedUK  08:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on your successful RfA! Now that you have the tools I'll let you in on an admin secret, sort of akin to the Konami Code. Here's what you do: delete your user page, then undelete, then delete again, then undelete, then protect your talk page, then unprotect, then block an anonymous vandal for 24 hours based on an AIV report, then close an AfD as "no consensus" with a 37-word rationale (be sure not to use hyphens). After completing this series of actions a man wearing a kilt and a cowboy hat will suddenly appear out of nowhere right there in front of you and offer you a giant steaming mug of coffee. Whatever you do don't drink it, because the guy makes absolutely terrible coffee, and quite frankly you'll be lucky if you can convince him to just go away and leave you alone without going on and on about how much trouble he took to bring you the stuff. Look, I didn't say it was a good secret. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Adminship certainly does have its quirks... I want my free terrible coffee! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this guy teach me the secret handshake and give me the key to the Temple, or does that come in the mail? Fences&Windows 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously that's not something we can talk about on the internet. Just remember not to drink the coffee and you'll be fine. Also when he shows up, and I can't believe I almost forgot this, be sure that you are not wearing one of those tweed jackets with elbow patches, otherwise it might get messy. And definitely DON'T start singing either. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you delete the mainpage, he brings nice coffee. GedUK  13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Congratulations. :) Crafty (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations and . December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you baleeted some information added to the Neanderthal article based on the book mentioned on http://www.themandus.org You don't consider this theory popular or useful?--69.196.131.216 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It sure isn't accepted in the field, so I think inclusion would be giving it undue weight. It's basically a self-published book by an enthusiastic amateur, and it only got a little Australian press. Raise it on the talk page, other editors might view it differently to me. Fences&Windows 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Shadowjams's talk page.
Message added 09:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Congrats too. You deserve it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've realised I've jumped the gun by a few hours on some closes, it wasn't intentional and I'll be careful to avoid it in future. If an admin feels that slightly early closes will have biased the outcome, please reopen. Fences&Windows 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for replying a bit late, was out of the town and just got back...Surkhailis are a big branch of the Swatis of Hazara division majority of them residing in the town of Baffa, if you have any doubt then you better visit a famous book called The "history of Hazara" by Dr Sher Bahadur Khan panni, further I will recommend you to see couple of books of british author as "Hazara Gazetteer", those were being written in 1887 and 1907 when pashtuns and their allies struggling for freedom against Britishers. Take care! Haider (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You marked an issue on the ANI noticeboard as resolved. I have taken the liberty of reversing that in light of emergent information. I thought you should know. Crafty (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, it seemed resolved! Ah, I see it was a tangential issue, you're quite right. Is there an established policy on such privacy edits? Fences&Windows 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. I've edited his Userpage but it might need oversight. Sorry for the late reply. :"> Crafty (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 29

Hello Fences, You left a message on Dapi89's page saying "We have to be civil with editors we neither like nor respect, without letting them bait us." I am curious, are you suggesting that I am baiting Dapi89? If so, could you point to exactly what I said that made you think so? Thanks, Steel2009 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to Dapi89's perception. Nothing more. Fences&Windows 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dapi took your reference to his perception as support for his position and left a message on the ANI saying "As per the messaging on my page: I won't be repsonding to anymore baiting by the trouble maker." Steel2009 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And? This seems to have strayed somewhat from the original content disputes: as far as I can see there's no consensus to support your edits to Battle of Kursk or Blitzkrieg. I'm certainly not about to block Dapi89 as he seems to have taken the warnings to remain civil seriously for now. Also, I note your own use of the terms 'silly' and 'absurd' when editing as an IP:[1]. I'd suggest getting on with editing other articles and letting this drop: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Fences&Windows 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And... you are "enabling" incivility, just my opinion of course. I wish I could share your optimism about Dapi's future behavior, time will tell. As for "12 daughters and 183 sons"... isn't that absurd? That is to say, the disparity rather than the editor. Have a good day, Steel2009 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I notice you've just closed this as Merge, on the grounds that "the bulk of editors support a merge". Can I point out that four editors suggested Merge... And four editors suggested Keep.

I suggest that you might want to go with 'no consensus' on this instead? I'm likely to take this to review otherwise. --Barberio (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arguments for keep were weak, so I gave them substantially less weight. Basically the only argument for keep was "he won an award", but it is a minor furry fandom award, not a major award. I still think my reading of the debate as favouring merge was correct, but you may open a deletion review if you wish. Fences&Windows 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not your place as Admin to substitute your own judgement to make a decision, AFDs are decided by consensus not by Administrators. Will you please reconsider before I take it to review? --Barberio (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I also draw your attention to the issue that the AFD re-listing was done incorrectly, Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions states that relisting shouldn't happen where there were more than two comments and policy related arguments had been used. So Mackensen's re=list of the AFD was incorrect. --Barberio (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, take it to DRV if you must, but as I've indicated on my talk page I think your understanding of the relisting mechanism is faulty. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just read your argument in defence on the DRV that "The only argument for keep was 'he won an award'". I'd like to draw your attention to this diff - [2] - and point out that is a separate argument based on citation of notability by sourcing. Will you reconsider now? --Barberio (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DRV is open, just let it run. There's no harm in my decision being reviewed. Fences&Windows 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas K. Dye. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Following your deletion of my comment, I again request you to resign, your handling of this issue has caused disruption. You are a new administrator, and should have avoided controversy in your first actions, but have apparently courted it. --Barberio (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a simple dispute, which is being resolved by a discussion at the talk page of the merge target. I have not abused any tools or breached any policy. Kindly cease contacting me regarding this. Fences&Windows 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. If you have a problem, take it up at WP:AN/I and WP:DRV. No need to continue badgering here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was taken to DRV... part of the problem is that it was deemed out of the scope of DRV! (not by me) Fences&Windows 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. It appears the discussion has moved to Talk:Newshounds as you suggested. You may also be interested in this if you haven't seen it already. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you close an AfD that had just been relisted less than 6 hours previous to see if consensus could be reached? Policy/guidelines say it should be relisted and moved to the current date, which means spend more than 6 hours to try to gain consensus.[3]

And it's not a total split on keep/delete, it's very obvious toward keep. Did you close the wrong debate, you were looking at something else then closed this one? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, it was an oops. Lol. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call it a brain spasm. I've reopened. Fences&Windows 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it might be that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

I see that you made a POV about medals being placed on userpages. I managed to take a look on User:Zaferk's blanked userpage, and judging from the debate the policy on medals is not a new rule. It has been policed in Wikipedia since 2008. - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a comment, not a 'POV'. Where is this debate you refer to, and why are you making this point here instead of at ANI? Fences&Windows 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"There is no process for receiving these awards; You just judge for yourself which one you are eligible for, and place the badge on your user page." Also see Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Rules_for_displaying_awards. Fences&Windows 03:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you but wanted to point out that there is not a WP:WRITER. (I think it is funny and an easy mistake to make so don't worry about it too much).Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, I spotted it as soon as I clicked the button. Whoops. I fixed it already. Fences&Windows 02:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the timestamps you corrected it before I got the mention in. I thought I had got you good!Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whack-an-admin is a fun pursuit, keeps us on our toes. Better luck next time! Fences&Windows 03:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"or whatever" was because I couldn't remember if WP:Civil redirects to the civility policy or not and didn't feel like checking, relax. Yzak Jule (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite relaxed. I just hope you heed the warning. Fences&Windows 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I personally don't feel I've harassed anyone, which is why I was trying to ask Farix what he was talking about, but as for the other stuff I'll tread a little lighter.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make sure you don't follow Tryptofish or Farix to unrelated articles that they are editing, and stay away from their talk pages unless absolutely necessary. Fences&Windows 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only reason I was on Farix's talk page is because he came on to mine first, so I think that's a little unfair. I see your point about Tryptofish, though, but I'm currently involved in a dispute with him and another user over their violation of consensus at Crucifixion and some related articles so that might be difficult. Sorry to take up your time.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:HA, "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The two edits I made while looking through Tryptofish's contribs were doing some copy editing on an article after reading it because it sounded interesting, and noticing he was asking for a source and providing one. Under Wikipedia's own rules, I don't see how any of this is harassment at all.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I commented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lexiecreator/Cassie cleans up, and removed a speedy tag that had been added in error to the MfD page. - Eastmain (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're not behaving themselves very well. They deleted part of my deletion nomination, and also created the same page on es.wikipedia, but this time in articlespace. Fences&Windows 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at this and see if we can move this into the mainspace. Extremepro (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While acknowledging that many were involved, I'd like to commend you (little though my commendation might be worth) for your work on the Events Notability guideline. I think it is a terrific addition, and successfully whacks all the troublesome mole-issues. --Jaymax (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It was a pretty successful collaboration. I was half expecting it to fail, but I think that because none of us were writing it according to an ideology on how these articles were supposed to be handled it was able to be adjusted according to criticism. Fences&Windows 13:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hear, hear! BTW, I saw your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuwang Club fire: "The guideline WP:GNG clashes explicitly with the policy WP:NOTNEWS, and the guideline WP:EVENT attempts to resolve this dichotomy by laying out the principles by which we judge whether an event is notable." I think that is an awesome summary of WP:EVENT and I would support its additional into the guideline. Thoughts on where to put it? Location (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want to merge them since we both opened one up on Bravedog? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, I feel the same way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I merged them. Feel free to do what you want to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to comment at the SPI that you helped initiate with me and Daniel as it is getting pretty interesting over there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I owe you an apology, there's more to this than I was aware of and I'm sorry for the "paranoid" comment. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Fences&Windows 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on putting together the evidence for the Kils SPI case. While we've had differences of opinion in the past, I can't help but admire all of the great work you've done for Wikipedia. Congrats also on your much-deserved promotion to adminship. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you'd had a look at the case due to your inadvertant use of rollback! Once I got the idea that it was sockpuppetry I had to keep digging. Fences&Windows 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CANVAS

It appears that User:Ktr101 and User:Daniel Case have admitted to breaking WP:CANVAS here. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WP:CANVAS rule doesn't apply to their topic at that moment, WP:SPI, which calls for submitting evidence rather than consensus (!votes). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppetry shown, accounts blocked. Fences&Windows 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Granted, the Rutherford/DC "physics" link was a bit suspicious... but where was their SPI? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, you know what I meant. Good pedantry though! Fences&Windows 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to let you know that I ended up responded to your post in very short order quite by accident since I was in the middle of trying to re-summarize the situation as a whole anyway. Since I honestly don't know how other editors think about these matters, I very rarely "want" an XfD matter to close as delete unless it's a complete abomination that fell through the cracks. I much rather see something grow and survive, but in most cases there are only 1-2 other editors involved and action is a lot simpler, I may speak with them directly and I wasn't figuring this would grab this many replies. Not an hour ago a random editor came along and vastly improved an article out of the blue and I closed for speedy/snow keep per nominator as all other comments had been on 'keep' and zero other concerns raised.. I admit, in some cases I could stand to work on the articles myself, but in this case I ran out of objective directions after realizing the lack of US Census info, and in the prior I'd closed I found I had an accidental PoV conflict with that article since evidence I collected regarding a main contributor of that article was later placed in relation to a block of that user. Okay, that's sounded more complex than it is, but key being I do as best I can to think things through at length before I decide to act on anything at all. I'll have this page watched for the duration of the AfD, so if you have any issues you'd like me to address in particular, please feel free to ask. I'm certainly sorry if I'm taking up extemporaneous amounts of your time on this... Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was really objecting to the whole debate being totally devoid of reference to sources. I'm going to spend some more time to see if I can source the entries. Fences&Windows 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a funny article! But I deleted the comment in consideration of the user's dignity. He's had a hard enough day. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very fair. I was certainly not planning to use it as a source. Fences&Windows 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, is that a wikisloth icon on your userpage? I've got one too. If we get at least one more person to join in, it will be a movement. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're a rare breed, there's only 103 of us.[4] Fences&Windows 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha, black-hatted members of Sable Cloth Hat! (The Cobalt Lash, Bathos Hellcat, Hot Cash Ballet, etc.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the lone deletion argument doesn't hold any weight"? Tim Song (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. Um. Whoops. Fixed. Fences&Windows 23:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are all single persons. I will bring written proof, that I received the HEISENBERG AWARD and the 500 000 VOLKSWAGEN FOUNDATION PRIZE, an EB-1 invitation for my whole family, and a book cited 115 times - http://www.ecoscope.com/biomass3.htm - another chapter in book http://www.ecoscope.com/polarbe2.htm, another http://www.ecoscope.com/naturwie.htm . We will obey to the restricktions - Uwe Kils 09:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, see, I don't believe that there was more than one person involved in operating those accounts. You can continue to protest, but I'd wager nobody else believes you either. So you should let it drop, and those accounts will remain blocked.

The question of whether we should have a biography about you is another matter, and a question on which I am undecided. Your PhD thesis has indeed been cited quite a few times, but only around 5 times per year since it was published. Simply publishing chapters in books is not sufficient to show notability, per WP:PROF. Awards are a different matter, and good documentation of major awards in science would indeed be evidence of notability. By good evidence, I don't mean a scan hosted on your own domain. However, the Volkswagen Foundation gave you a grant, not a prize, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg Programme isn't a prize, but a fellowship.[5] But you did win the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz-Preis in 1979.[6] Fences&Windows 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But not by me. Please close it. I promised already that we will only use the kils account in the future and that nobody is allowed to work on my IP or machine or name and that I will obey the restrictions. I meant it only good giving information of our UHSE ELITE UNIVERSITY into the public domain, but we have all also on our servers. I have never seen a person behaving like user:cert, not even giving his scientiffic background. I did not "Canvas", I only asked to vote. Nothing else. Uwe Kils 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That account is blocked and accounts are not deleted. Considering the similarities in language, timing of posting, etc., it is beyond reasonable doubt that a single person was operating all the accounts that were blocked. Don't continue trying to persuade me otherwise as it will be fruitless. As has been said before, "Assume good faith is not a suicide pact". Fences&Windows 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ta. Peridon (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDiana_Napolis&action=historysubmit&diff=330541616&oldid=330517997, could you provide me with the url where the canvassing was taking place? the point is moot now, as the article has been deleted, but it might undergo deletion review so evidence of canvassing might prove useful. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was linked to in the debate: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27654. There's a group of editors who frequently canvass deletion debates on Wikipedia Review. The closing admin, Secret/Jaranda, posted there after closing it, saying "I closed it, though I expect a DRV with the result". Fences&Windows 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was hoping you could take a look at this deletion debate. Someone has written a message claiming the information in the article is libelous (which is stretching it a bit), but I think the debate has mostly run its course, with established editors weighing in with policy, and mainly SPA's providing opinions to keep. Angryapathy (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite right, no point letting that debate continue. Fences&Windows 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed you deleted For Fuel Freedom, Inc. because a patent was suppossedly self-promoted. A patent may be written by the inventor or their attorney, but they do happen to go through a more thorough editing and review process than books, and are reviewed by patent examiners with stringent guidelines. And unlike books, that process can take years to review not months. The changes that come about are certainly nothing like what was originally submitted. That is not a "self-published" definition. Please restore the page. EmmettLBrown (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to bottom and replied on your talk. Fences&Windows 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't undestand something. Please continue the discussion with me on my talk. Thanks. EmmettLBrown (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.205.49 (talk) Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novell Forge Password Management Servlets was closed as delete. The page was moved to Password Management Servlets during the AfD. You deleted the redirect but not the content. Can you fix this please by deleting Password Management Servlets? I am sorry for you that this got confused. Thanks for looking into it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. That's what happens from using tools to close the debates and forgetting about moves during the debate. Fences&Windows 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mind said "Uh oh, I will have to notify the discussion closer." when the move occurred! Thank you for the assistance with more advanced tools. Miami33139 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The weekly Policy Report in the Signpost features community feedback on policy pages; see for instance here, here and here. We're putting together another one for the Signpost 9 days from now at WT:Consensus#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit within the last two months at that talk page, but all responses are welcome. I'm not watchlisting, so if you have questions or comments, please drop a note at the policy talk page or my user page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nathan Keyes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. As an aside, the DRV request was placed on the talkpage of the AfD, you might want to speedy it. treelo _radda 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Micro 101 here, could you please tell me what I did wrong in my merge? Also, how did you get your user boxes in that handy little window?METAL MAN (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Micro 101Reply[reply]

Do read the link I left about how to do merges, it should explain the process better than I can. But briefly, a merge should avoid overwhelming the target. The information about the Lower Elements is quite extensive and pasting in the whole article to the target page gives undue weight to the Lower Elements. Another issue is that you need to take the Wiki Markup formatted text from the edit window of the source page, rather than cutting and pasting directly from the article page. Once you've copied the text across, you need to note this in the edit summary to comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (to give credit to the contributors of the source text) and then redirect the source page to the target page (you missed this step out). Fences&Windows 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Fences, I was wondering where you got those pictures and how you put them in your user boxes, please reply at my discussion page here:METAL MAN (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Micro 101Reply[reply]

I got all my userboxes from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery. Fences&Windows 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the inadvertent deletion of your comments! No clue how that happened... --Crusio (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have clicked "edit" on a previous version? Weird things happen sometimes. Fences&Windows 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's still hanging on at es:wp, despite the propb having expired. Probably not important in this case, but I note that you didn't inform the creator - it's ((subst:Aviso propb|nombre de articulo)) ~~~~ for future reference, if you ever make your way back over there.

Incidentally, looking at old Papa November and Verbal SPIs I notice that you seem to have escaped being accused - I hope you didn't feel left out, probably would have happened eventually.   pablo_hablo. 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, the es.wiki admins are tardy. I would normally notify when prodding, but I figured they weren't a good faith contributor. I went for prod as working out AfD in another language is tricky, I barely managed when I did one in French:[7].

I've never been accused of being a sockpuppet or had someone accused of being my sock, so I do feel left out, but I'm sure it'll happen. I've been called on to resign my adminship once already though! Fences&Windows 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must have missed that. Shows that you must be doing something right I suppose!   pablo_hablo. 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was Barberio a couple of weeks ago, see above. Fences&Windows 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it took a fortnight, but they got round to it eventually. The spirit of "mañana" is alive and well!   pablo_hablo. 12:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And ironically it was deleted under the "Criterios para el borrado rápido"! Isn't WP:NODEADLINE a variant of "mañana"? Fences&Windows 14:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll answer that maybe tomorrow, maybe someday   pablo_hablo. 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today Tomorrow Sometime Never. Fences&Windows 23:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for the advice on where to get the pictures for the user boxes, but next time can you reply on my page? Thanks! :)Micro 101 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Micro 101Reply[reply]

It is standard practice to reply where the conversation begins; you'll need to specify if you want a reply in on your talk page. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more about talk pages. You can keep track of changes to talk pages and articles by adding them to your watchlist, see Help:Watching pages. Fences&Windows 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!Reply[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09)) to your friends' talk pages.

Hi, If you peruse the Wikispace, you will see that there are pictures in a number of articles, either to illustrate a point, or to add humour. This suggests that there is a consensus that some pictures are OK. Sorry for the controversial picture. I was looking for a reconciliation picture, and the cartoon appeared to show reconciliation.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC) -::Hi,I don't believe I did the Mary Pickford film poster of the two kids beating each other up. Nevertheless, I have put a number of pictures up to illustrate points. Why are you against pictures? Do you think it cheapens the discussion? Other editors seem to agree with the idea of illustrating the Wikispace.Reply[reply]

I like appropriate use of pictures. But most of your chosen images are irrelevant or tangential to the topic, they don't well illustrate the text or add explanation. They're whimsical or surreal and they're pretty distracting, often disrupting the page format. If the relevance of the picture isn't obvious and needs explaining using a lengthy caption, it's not really adding anything. Particularly for policies and guidelines, this is inappropriate. Essays are a different manner as their tone is often a bit flippant, but don't add a picture just for the sake of it. For example, you added a picture of Sherlock Holmes to "Assume clue", but "clue" in wikispeak has nothing to do with finding clues, but is rather a contraction of "clued up", so the picture and caption were not related to the topic of the essay. Please discuss on the talk pages whether your choices of illustration are appropriate. Fences&Windows 15:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, some of the pictures I've added, make, I think, a nice addition...for example Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Thanks for examplaining the clueocracy thing. However, the fact that I didn't understand it suggests that the "Assume clue" page could provide an explanation that "clue" is not being used in the common colloquial sense of "get a clue" or being "clueless".OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)...By the way, I added the bound books on the shelf, not the bombing picture (which even I think is a bit flippant)Reply[reply]

Yes, the bombing pic would be more relevant to Wikipedia:Tag bombing. And the pile of books is a nice illustration. When a picture is related to the topic, like a Duck for the Duck test, it can be a nice addition. I added a picture of a man sitting on a dead horse to WP:STICK, so I appreciate that they can be used. Fences&Windows 15:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on narcissism. I dont know if you noticed this : User_talk:AGEdmunds Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology/Self_and_Identity --Penbat (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narcissism is mentioned in bullying article. Narcissism is only in the Bullying template as a related topic. Many bullies are narcissistic. However unfortunately the scientific literature for bullying and narcissism is usually separate and bullying is more of a social construct anyway. --Penbat (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict):I could tell that was new material. It's a very bitty article generally, it needs some more flow, more coherence, but I don't know enough on the subject to do it myself. Btw, I removed the bullying category, as there's no text in the article to support the connection, but I see from a quick look at the literature that the two are connected, e.g. work by Dieter Zapf. It'd be good to include in the article. Fences&Windows 23:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. There are strong links between narcissism and bullying but not many refs where the two are discussed in the same academic source as bullying and narcissism tend to get researched by different types of people, anyway bullying is more of a social construct and not a scientific word. Is Dieter Zapf a useful source ? --Penbat (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's some of his work on workplace psychology in this book:[8]. Roy Baumeister also seems to be a good researcher for this topic, e.g. "People high in self-esteem or narcissism are prone to bully others, to retaliate aggressively, and to be prejudiced against out-group members."[9] Fences&Windows 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank i will look into this. To me it is blindingly obvious that bullying is not a phenomena that arrived one day from outer space and it can be explained in terms of well known psychological conditions, particularly personality disorders. I am also convinced that there are two main types of bullying (1)sadistic or psychopathic bullying where a vulnerable person such as disabled or elderly is bullied (2) narcissistic bullying where the bully is envious of somebody who is more talented than him and he uses psychological projection to offload his shortcomings onto the target and make out that he is the victim. I think that psychological projection explains an awful lot about the mechanics of bullying but i have hardly found any sources on bullying that realise this.--Penbat (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean it ... oddest closure I've seen in weeks. Tx for being principle-based, and crossing the aisle on the del review.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Fences & Windows, for your astute opinion and careful work on the Charles J. Fisher and the Charles J. Fisher AfD pages. I will try to update the references according to the LA Times search link you provided. A gold star to you. Wikigratia (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the advantages/disadvantages to choosing one over the others? I have some ideas regarding that, but others have probably written out theirs already somewhere(s). There's at least one vulnerable stub in the mainspace and a couple deleted articles I'd like the opportunity to review sometime, and I'm not sure where they would best be pondered and worked on. Also, can articles in the mainspace be userfied or incubated w/o going through AfD? Шизомби (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good questions, I've not come across any essays on the topic. I think incubation is always better than userfying, particularly when there isn't one identifable author. Articles can be userfied or moved into the incubator without going through AfD, though this could be controversial. If anyone could reasonably object to it or it looks like you're doing it to kick the article into the long grass, it'd be best not to. The decision to userfy/incubate could be taken by a discussion at the talk page rather than requiring AfD. If an article is poorly sourced and potentially containing original research and you can't fix it right away, incubation could be better than stubbing as the material is not then lost. As a place to resurrect and improve an article that has been deleted, incubation is ideal, but again care is needed to avoid giving the impression of circumventing consensus at AfD - moving it back into articlespace might require a deletion review. Fences&Windows 17:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I'll have to try looking around or developing my thoughts on the different places to create or fix articles then. If an article has been deleted, and I wanted to take a stab at having it meet policies and guidelines, that would require a DR even if it were just put in userspace or the incubator, wouldn't it? Or is there an alternate process? Шизомби (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restoring an article to userspace or the incubator just requires a willing admin, though articles in userspace and the incubator could be subject to an MfD if editors are really keen to suppress it (which might be reasonable if it is unsalvagable). Fences&Windows 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wordsmith^Communicate is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for supporting my opinion so strongly at the ANI discussion on Shepherd. But I don't actually think it's correct that if I vote to delete , the article is usually hopeless If people thought this way, it would put me in a position of having a practical veto in the subject concerned, and that is not fair to the principle of consensus. What I think it much more sensible to say, and I know is actually what you meant, is that one is convinced by my arguments, not impressed by my predisposition or authority. I am more inclusionist than the average in some subjects, including PROFs in the humanities. and I suppose he can be classified as such. But there are others where I am often more deletionist than the consensus, and that includes non-fiction non-academic books and their writers--which is also relevant here.

I mean this as only a friendly note. I am very glad you ended the foolish AfD & got rid of the article, rather than have another 10 days of nonsense. But you can realize that this sort of thing can end by my being marginalized. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was actually Kevin who put the AfD out of its misery, I vacillated about it. You make a fair point; I was too flippant, my apologies. An expansion of my thinking is that you make great efforts to find sourcing and evidence of impact for scholars, and if you were unable to come up with any in this case it is a bad sign. On certain subjects you do have a de facto veto, as most editors will look at your reading of the situation and respect it. So I wasn't meaning my throwaway comment to be a slight against you. Fences&Windows 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to like userboxes. Do you by any chance use Windows under duress, or are you a happy camper? ((User OS:Windows Duress)) --Slashme (talk)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no question which statement caught your attention. For your convenience, it was added here here, then moderated (a bit) here. If either the edit or its revision is actionable, by either statutory or Wikipedia standards, then you'll want those references handy.

I don't know if the revision will be allowed to stand, but for now at least the Google bots have fewer bad words to index. If the statements that concern you precede it in the discussion, though, then I'm afraid they will have to stand until the page is blanked. Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the rewording and the apology. Fences&Windows 22:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Micro 101 here to wish you, Fences and Windows, a very safe, fun, and relaxing new year! What's your resolution?

--Micro101 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You try and be nice and thats what you get, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked them out due to their contributions at Talk:FlashForward, I was just planning to leave a warning but then saw that edit summary and previous warnings. They've only been here for two days; sockpuppet? Fences&Windows 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't know, I have only been involved at Jim Leavitt , he is c;early not here to help improve the wikipedia imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's Crotchety Old Man, I'm filing an SPI. That editor was blocked for incivility on the 28th, and had previously removed the info about Leavitt. p.s. I think the wording on the 'alleged assault' needs toning down and should probably not have its own section heading - I can understand the BLP concerns. Fences&Windows 21:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also don't support indef od COM, he will only sock his way round the world. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've asked for a review of my block of COM at Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. Happy New Year. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, ta. Fences&Windows 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]