User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 12

Jack Lord
Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks OK and the sorting works, and the previous table was a mess. Why are you asking me, and why are you monitoring Wildhartlivie's editing? And re: their comments about you being a sock: "I told you so." Stop going on about it and "ArbCom commending you". Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My issue is that she's continuing to call her preferred approach the "standard". She's advocating the removal of the sorting, and it was Maile66 and Wildhartlivie who brought up my history, not I. I noticed this because the Jack Lord article perked-up on my watchlist. And I pinged you because you're reasonably familiar with this.
 * I'm about to go out; will check-back laters. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You brought up your history with your "This user is a sockpuppet" notice. Everyone who looks at your userpage sees it. Wasn't there supposed to be an RfC on this? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the sock aspects of my user page back some months ago. I do see at as a part of my history and about transparency. There is a stub of a colour RfC at User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC and I need to get focused on that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that Jack shows up at many articles where he has never edited before, just as he did the Jack Lord one for the first time, less than an hour after I posted my reassessment comments at the article talk page. This goes on constantly and it's a real issue. His conduct regarding me tremendously inhibits my enjoyment of the site and is factually wikistalking. That Jack wants to change the standard to his preferred version does not take away from the fact that the use of that template had consensus at the first RfC on WT:ACTOR and he tends to fill his time with appearing at various articles soon after I edit there to "police" me or simply to announce that his eyes are on me. Whether he has 5000, 8000 or 100,000 articles on his watchlist where he has never previously edited, he invariably shows up at articles within a short time of my editing them. This needs to stop, really. Please. He's also well aware that this conduct is incredibly stressful to me and that my health is effected by it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack Merridew, a neutral message: "This user previously edited as Davenbelle ([click for details])" would do, no? Oh, the RfC is only on colour, and nowt else? Would be good to get sortability and rowspan resolved too. Wildhartlivie: your concern about Jack Merridew apparently following you is noted and I am inclined to agree that he needs to stop interacting with you (and probably vice versa). I'll read all this again, and see if I have any intelligent comments to make. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * briefly, I see her as attempting to run me off from 'her' articles because she does not want anyone with differing views editing her articles; see my interactions with Rossrs, who's adopted a lot of what I'm advocating. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fences and windows. If Jack would stop following, demeaning me and picking issues like this one today, I'd have nothing to say, either to or about him. Also note who magically appeared here to post yet another disparaging comment above this. He always shows up and posts something disparaging about me, wherever he can and he tends to show up when Jack is involved. At one point he said he was waiting for me to burn out and get permanently banned. I'd be glad to put together diffs on him too. He's another not as frequent harasser, who makes it a habit of going around post comments like this. And Jack, please don't drag Rossrs into this, you have no clue. My health is only an issue when I am wikistalked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Chowbok, please stay out of this and stop baiting Wildhartlivie. Do you have nothing better to do? I've removed your comment. Please only post on my talk page if you have something factual to say to me, rather than giving your unhelpful opinions. Jack Merridew, if this issue of table markup and standardisation is as important as you claim then others will surely pick up the baton, and you should be able to reach a consensus. There's no need for you to follow Wildhartlivie around. Besides, I don't really see anyone besides you who considers this matter to be urgent or important. Rossrs seems happy with blue headers and non-sortable tables. Wildhartlivie, your responses to every slight, real or perceived, often don't help matters. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know they probably don't, but it makes me crazy when it happens. That is exactly what I think is intended. Thanks alot for taking me seriously. You don't know how much I appreciate it. I imagine it's much like sending the kids to separate corners. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A fair number of folks who commented in the ACTOR:RFC understand these issues and support what I've been saying. And there's the whole mess from last year that I was not involved in where this all went against WHL's positions and she just discarded all outside input and proceeded to make more of a mess. The people who see these issues with markup and colour tend to be people with a technical background because the core concern is a technical one; this is an inappropriate way to build web pages. That's not just my say-so; it's the consensus of most professional developers on teh interwebs, including the devs at WMF. Rossrs's edit includes a lot of code tweaks that are suggestions of mine. See our current dialogue on my talk page. As best I can tell, Rossrs is a friend of WHL's who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too. As to urgency and importance, I've been patient; this began in February (for me) and in May '08 for her, and it is important because we need to stop digging the hole in the wrong place so we can get on-track. Jack Merridew 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And a fair number of folks, who apparently without a "seriouz-clue" according to you, are the reason why there was not consensus on many of these things. Just as many other people are opposed to what Jack is touting. And Jack, I asked you nicely to leave Rossrs out of this, you have no clue of what he thinks and thus bringing him up multiple times is yet another way of digging at me and despite your contention, he is doing nothing he has not done many times in the past, only now he is inserting the filmography table heading. As Fences & Windows pointed out, Rossrs seems happy with blue headings and non-sortable tables. You have no clue of what he thinks. The hole that needs to stop being dug is the Jack Merridew stalking around after me. That's the issue here and once again, you've tried to divert the discussion away from the basic issue. Please leave me alone, stop following me around and doing what amounts to harassment. I'm asking you nicely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with the thrust of this. Wildhartlivie might be doing some owning of this content matter, but that is not going to be resolved by following them around, reverting them, and commenting about them to everyone who interacts with them on filmography formatting. What you need to do is to keep discussing this issue in centralised places, preferably a well-advertised RfC, and to stop interacting with Wildhartlivie outside of these centralised discussions. It's ridiculous that this keeps flaring up in skirmishes on talk pages, it reminds me of the lame nationalist edit wars over Danzig/Gdansk, British Isles/Britain and Ireland, or Derry/Londonderry. I think you have the best of intentions - to standardise Wikipedia's formatting to help readers and editors - but your approach is problematic and you're not seeing this. By focussing only your perception that Wildhartlivie is breaching consensus, you're not seeing how your attempts to resolve this are turning a simple content/format issue into a full-scale behavioural dispute, especially as you have an tendency to make disparaging comments about people you disagree with. You have objected to others who agree with Wildhartlivie as being 'meatpuppets' (which is unfair, Wikipedians agreeing with each other are not 'meatpuppets'), but you never object when Chowbok snipes from the sidelines. You're making this a "them vs us" issue. Your comments about Rossrs have the ring of trying to 'recruit' someone who has previously edited with Wildhartlivie to 'your side'. If you don't voluntarily refrain from commenting on article talk pages and to individual editors about Wildhartlivie's editing of filmographies (including when this appears on your watchlist, as we cannot check that), I'll seek a formal interaction ban. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly surprised that my name pops up throughout this discussion, and if not for that, I probably wouldn't feel the need to comment. I assume good faith that Jack's comments are not intended to "recruit" me.  I would hope that we can have civilised discussions in the future as I would like to be able to work with anyone.  I generally agree with the comments made about me.  Jack, you're right in saying that I support some of things you advocate.  Some of them are uncontroversial, and some of them, specifically the markup and font size in the tables, were discussed at length at WP:ACTOR.  I had my say on that page and although not everything went the way I would have liked, my attitude is to support the recommendations of such discussions, even if it's against my preferred option.  My editing history over about 5 years will bear this out - every time some change is made to the way certain articles are presented, I try to take it on board and go through editing numerous articles to bring them in line, and before I get anywhere near finished, the prevailing attitudes change again and I go back over the same articles.  So in that regard Wildhartlivie is correct.  It's my standard approach, but it's true to say that I do agree with a good deal of what you say.  In a nutshell, yes I am happy with the blue headers and the non-sortable tables as Fences&Windows observed, though I have not actually discussed my like or dislike for the sortable format.   I haven't added any, nor removed any. If the header colour is discussed I'll support the blue over the bog-standard.  If consensus is to switch to the bog standard, I'll be disappointed, but I'll also be there helping to change them over.   As I've mentioned before to you, I don't always appreciate the manner in which you present your views, but I don't take that to heart, and I don't let it stop me from contributing.  I have felt that I'm part of the group of editors you've dismissed with "meatpuppet" comments and when you first started commenting at the actor discussion, I wasn't much interested in your opinion because it was peppered with that type of negative, dismissive comment. However, I stuck with it long enough to try to see your point and in some areas I came to understand and agree with you.


 * You're also right in saying that I am a friend of Wildhartlivie. I like her, value her and respect her.  I don't necessarily agree with her all the time, but for the most part I can see her point of view.  I've also edited with her long enough and frequently enough to know that she is someone who doesn't accept change for change's sake and is fairly firm in her opinions.  Some see that solely as an ownership issue, but I do not think it's as straight-forward as that, simply because I've also seen enough situations where she has changed her opinion after discussion.   I'm glad that you describe me as someone "who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too."  I honestly try to see all points.  There are still things that need to be discussed regarding filmographies and other aspects of the articles we seem to all edit.  It's probably too much to hope for, but maybe if it could be discussed along the lines of "just the facts", without any nuances that may cause a reaction, it may actually be possible to make some progress.   I think everyone needs to understand and respect that if Wildhartlivie says she feels stalked, we have to accept that she is expressing a genuine concern, and that the correct approach is to keep a courteous distance.  Jack, you seem to appear at a lot of articles that Wildhartlivie has recently visited, and considering how many articles fall under just the broad "actor" heading, it should be possible to keep the contact to a minimum.  If everyone agrees to keep future conversations neutral and focussed on the discussion rather than the participants, is it possible we can move forward and make some progress?   I have to say this - "Chowbok snipes from the sidelines" is an absolutely perfect way to describe his behaviour.  It's been going on for too long, and I long ago stopped caring about how justified he feels he is. If Wildhartlivie bothers him so much, he needs to avert his gaze.  Not exactly rocket science.  Rossrs (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree with Fences and windows and Rossrs. The issues are the content and not Wildhartlivie, and we can't resolve the color/tables/sorting bit until that's been made clear.  It's wasting everyone's volunteer time here.  If this issue can't be solved here, then a ban on the interaction seems in order. Malke  2010  18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been largely not commenting to WHL for some time as it's clear that things run in circles and that it exacerbates the situation. In the case of the Jack Lord table, I saw the page pop up on my watchlist; I'd not edited it before but assume is was one of the thousand articles I watched by pasting WP:ACTOR/PP; that's a bot-updated page and Jack Lord doesn't appear on it at the moment; it doesn't appear on WT:ACTOR or User:Wildhartlivie, either, and she'd not edited it in three months before I did. I watch a lot of pages. I see that she removed "bgcolour = silver" from the infobox; an appropriate removal. I saw a huge heap of bad markup in the article and cleaned it up; this is good and I've been doing such clean-up for years on wiki; for decades in the real world. I didn't make any comment to her or about her regarding this until she brought me up on the talk page of the editor who had been heavily editing the article recently. I've focused on the RfC proposal on MRG's page and that's where I see this getting sorted. She raised the possibility of mediation or an RFC/U, and that may yet be appropriate. I see that there's some history between Chowbok and WHL. She's got squabbles with a ton of editors.

WHL reverts; a lot. She's reverted an awful of my efforts at cleaning these articles up. She also attacks me quite regularly, and is generally a belligerent editor. Jimbo just commented on her, characterizing her comments as 'insulting'. It's clear that she simply wants me out of 'her articles'. This is the root of the 'following-around' complaint. She's aware of my history and can not have missed the whole issue regarding User:A Nobody who made pretty much the same complaint. This is a tactic to change the subject from my efforts to take the filmography formatting in a directing she doesn't want it to go.

I hardly tried to recruit Rossrs; he came to my talk page and started a productive thread; User talk:Jack Merridew. I will engage in dialogue with most anyone, regardless of whether I agree with them, as long as it's civil and productive. I think the best solution to the poor interaction dynamic is for Rossrs to serve as an informal mediator. I expect he's acceptable to WHL, and he seems a reasonable bloke to me. Rossrs, ya up for it? Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, first of all, do not misrepresent the chronology on the Jack Lord article. I hadn't edited the article, but you arrived at the article here at 02:40, 24 June 2010 my time, 48 minutes after I had posted my assessment here, at 01:52, 24 June 2010 my time. It's disengenuous to claim that I hadn't edited there in 3 months since talk page edits show up on watchlists also. That you took off to grumble and inappropriately canvass back-up has been demonstrated. And if you had done your stalking properly, you'd note that the editor who requested the assessment first referenced your appearance by posting on my talk page here, saying "Laugh or not, but before I got to your assessment, some other user jumped in and edited the filmography table, mostly by taking out the reduced font size. Not all that helpful, but it took a lot of work to do that. And I'm hoping that same user leaves the new template alone as it has reduced font size. So, following to that user's talk page, it says "This user is a Sock Puppet". Aren't sock puppets not supposed to be used? Did I read wrong somewhere about sock puppets?" as you already know and have indicated that when you posted your canvassing posts. I recognized the description (who wouldn't who is familiar with you?) and guessed it was you when I posted my reply to that editor. Once again, that's a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Your bragging about being a sock puppet on your userpage is what brought you up, I didn't initiate anything, which Fences and Windows noted above. Also note that you wikistalked me to that user's talk page, when I posted to her here at 12:15, 24 June 2010, and you showed up, just like the cavalry, to post your own take on the matter in the next edit to the page, at 13:49, 24 June 2010. And you were swiftly followed by, who? - Chowbok, who posted his repetitive notice of my block history here. It's his misediting to arbitrarily switch the citation style at Ed Gein where his crap started. I am guessing he didn't like that he was required by guidelines to first propose a wholesale change to citation styling before initiating it, but that's where his bullcrap started. Does that description ring any bells?


 * You are well aware of the history regarding Chowbok and his aligning himself with SkagitRiverQueen and how he started wikistalking me too, just like you, but posting clear and deliberate personal attacks on multiple pages. Your characterization of me as "She's got squabbles with a ton of editors." is an attempt to change the subject. That has nothing to do with your wikistalking me and I asked you nicely, more than once, to leave me alone. Jimbo made a non-specific comment based on something I said, and that was not a personal attack or disparaging in any way. It's well known, amongst many editors involved on the page being discussed for deletion, including the ones with a "seriouz-clue" that Jimbo wants that page deleted and myriad other things regarding that article. It's not related to you at all, except once again, you showed up to post opposition to a statement I made. What? No one is allowed to question Jimbo Wales' intent? You are not privy to the contents of the two e-mails he sent to me that regarded all of this. They reflect intent. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about when you say that the Jack Lord article doesn't appear on WT:ACTOR or User:Wildhartlivie either, but if you'd bother to note, I was specifically asked to review the article for suggestions and possible reassessment on User talk:Wildhartlivie here. Why is it that I am asked to do something and you become a part of it automatically? I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you have some wonder tool to know what articles are on my watchlist or is that simply a deflection comment? This discussion about your wikistalking is not a deflection attempt. I am truly sick and tired and fed up with your magically appearing on article after article after article just after I've edited. And I'm sick beyond words at the many attempts to bait and argue and canvass support against me. Again, I'll say it: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND. It can be substantiated. I am not up to date on your myriad issues with other editors, but I still note that when you returned, you were required to have a mentor because you wikistalked other editors and harassed them and I don't believe that was User:A Nobody. This is no different. And by the way, what you have done with this entire issue puts lie to your contention that you have not said things about me or done things to me. Many editors have seen your conduct about me and said so at AN/I. You've also dropped the intimidation effort of referencing to mediation or RfC/U more times than I can stomach. Chowbok pressed you to do it, if I recall. The only thing I am presently amenable to is you stopping the wikistalking and leave me alone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the views on this issue have been aired enough here. Everyone, keep discussing this at centralised venues, not on disparate article and user talk pages. Jack Merridew, please avoid following Wildhartlivie to articles or talk pages. Chowbok, please don't keep making unhelpful comments about Wildhartlivie. Wildhartlivie, please keep your posts brief and tone down the emotional level. Thanks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm?
You might want to change need to needed? O Fenian (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um. Yeah. Ironic, eh? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly an inopportune moment to do that yes. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you come back to the Johann Hari discussion if you have a moment?
Your contributions have been really balanced and helpful in the past. An editor is inserting material that seems to be breaching BLP rules pretty clearly to me, but she thinks I have misunderstood. A third party would be really helpful.David r from meth productions (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but you may not like it. Also, please always log in when editing or commenting. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pagemonster18
Hello, if you remember me, I reported Pagemonster18 to the Administrators' noticeboard Incident on June 18, 2010 for the continuation of adding unsourced materials. You commented that an indefinite block would follow if Pagemonster18 did it again. Today the editor made a contribution to an unreleased film. The unsourced contribution was reverted by an editor. I believe the Pagemonster18 edits in good faith but causes disruptive edits. Thanks,  Davtra   (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for following up on this. They are just not listening. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * ...and again. Might want to watchlist it, so I don't have to light your page up. :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Virtual novel
Greeting fellow Wiki editor and you have an interesting User page. I have removed the Delete notice from the Virtual Novel article. I know I am biased as I created the page and, yes, I am aware that there are not many references to be found (although there are a couple) but a Virtual Novel is just a novel published on the WWW not on paper and given that there are many aspiring novelists that cannot find publishers there are bound to be more virtual novels in the future. I am bit weary recently as I recently had another article I had created deleted, but do you really think that the presence of this article makes Wikipedia a worse place? Do you not think that some readers out there might not be interested in the subject? Maybe we could have wider debate with the opinions of more editors? I will probably lose the debate - I usually do :-) - but I feel duty-bound to at least try and save this article as I am fond of it and think it has value. Thanks  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I diligently looked for sources as I always do when assessing an unsourced article, and I found nothing in reliable sources that could support the contents of the article. I found various other definitions for "Virtual novel", but they would belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. You may be a bit weary, but perhaps you will learn to use sources in future, and not to make up topics from the top of your head? I shall proceed to AfD. You may be interested in Online book and Web fiction, two articles that are not under threat of deletion for being unverifiable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I try and be nice and friendly to you and you come back all pompous, formal and superior to me. Why would you do that? The article has been there the best part of a year and no other editor but you has objected to it's presence but go ahead and delete it if you feel like you're making Wikipedia a better place. 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You should know that unverifiable material has no place in Wikipedia and not try to paint me or others who argue for the deletion of such articles as doing anything wrong. I do hope you'll start using sources when writing articles; if that makes me pompous and superior, then so be it. Your plea that it might be interesting to someone doesn't hold water if we can't verify it, and the length of time an article has been in existence has no bearing on whether it meets inclusion criteria. It's a long, slow task to clean up unsourced material. Such articles do make Wikipedia a worse place as they leave abandoned, fragmented, and misleading material scattered across many pages, making a reader's experience confusing and unrewarding. We're writing an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not our personal scratchpad. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "cite video" template info
Care to discuss why you deleted the information about using the cite video template from the WP:Video links policy draft page? There's a discussion section on that on the talk page for your convenience. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contemporary media reporting on the Holocaust
Ping me again when the dust clears. I'd like to see just how big of a project writing this article would be. But if I can't directly contribute, I'll try to help by mediating the inevitable content disputes. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
While I know he doesn't say it specifically, I can't help, based on his recent comments and snarky digs at me, but think that this is a non-named personal attack. The main theme lately has been that I "complain" about my health too much and if I recall, it was characterized as a manipulation on this very page. I know it doesn't say my name, but at least, I predict that page link will start popping up about me from him. How does he get made to stop? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why were you reading Chowbok's userpage? Don't take the bait. Why do you care what Chowbok thinks? However, if he does persist in commenting on you as he as been, Harassment outlines what to do.
 * If you want to avoid being bullied, please avoid mentioning personal matters such as your health on Wikipedia, as this will only be used against you. If I were you I would remove the notice about your health and about retiring from crime articles. Just focus on content. Try to avoid conflict, try to resolve disputes early, and don't react emotionally, as that is exactly what bullies thrive on. As Rossrs said on your talk page, we all need to think about effective communication, both with those involved in disputes with us and with editors who might mediate the dispute - ways to do this are to avoid escalating the dispute ourselves, and to keep comments brief and focussed. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, she's left. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision of WP:BLPNAME
The issue of whether WP:BLPNAME should be revised has come up again. As you participated in a previous discussion on this guideline, you are invited to contribute your views at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi, can you stop the attacks and stalking going on by Chowbok? I tried discussing with him things on my talk page but it didn't seem to work. Now he is attacking a group of us at this article calling us a cabal. He is also at it at Doc9871. I have to be honest that has gotten tiring already. It would be really nice if you could help with this and make it stop already. Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Response
I realize that I'm not being the most civil, but I think you're being unfair. My point at Claudette Colbert is that when somebody removed a sourced statement that WHL put in, she indicated that the person removing it had the burden of proving it was an unreliable source; however, when she removed somebody else's sourced statement, it suddenly becomes the editor who wants it retain who has to prove reliability. If you don't want me to call them meat puppets, fine (although it wasn't that long ago that WHL got blocked for having sock puppets, one of which agreed with her in editing disputes all the time, and the other one left insulting homophobic comments on another editor's talk page—apparently everybody's supposed to forget that ever happened), but the pattern is clear; WHL, Crohnie, Rossrs, Doc9871, and Pinkadelica all agree on how they want an article through off-wiki consultation, and any edits that are made that they don't approve are instantly reverted as "against consensus". If anyone crosses them, they complain to noticeboards or admins known to be sympathetic immediately. This is a serious problem. I will work on being more civil, as I should, but I would like at least the slightest acknowledgment that I'm not the sole problem here.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was blunt this time as I asked nicely earlier in the month and that didn't seem to be effective. By all means I see issues with Wildhartlivie's approach to editing, but that doesn't excuse hounding her. If there's a problem with someone's editing you won't sort it out by following them around, baiting them, and calling people who edit together meatpuppets. I don't see why they'd need to coordinate off-wiki as watchlists and contributions are perfectly adequate to collaborate with someone, but talking off-wiki isn't disallowed. Ways to resolve disputes are to calmly discuss edits, get third opinions, seek advice on noticeboards and WikiProjects, open an RfC (if it really comes to it, an RfC/U), not jumping in, reverting, and accusing people of misconduct. This kind of approach is only going to get their hackles up, make editors circle the wagons against you, and make you look unreasonable. Your aim surely is to persuade people that your argument is correct, but you're not succeeding in this. There are greater problems than this on Wikipedia, and many other articles in need of fixing. However, I've dropped in some sources to the talk page to try to help that debate to progress beyond a "Hollywood Babylon is reliable"; "Isn't!"; "Is!" slanging match. If one source is disputed (not all sources should be used, particularly on biographies), the way to resolve the dispute is usually to find other sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. You're right that I'm not going about this the right way. I'm letting my anger at her drive me to distraction, and that's not helpful. I'll try to quit being so snarky and baiting. At the same time, I do think it's important to keep an eye on her edits, because IMO she is a problem editor. I will try to follow your advice about how to handle it. Would you mind being one of those "third opinions" in the future?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do seem to be in that position! Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to drag you into this further if you don't want to be. There are others I can talk to.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why would you ask him in the first place? Chowbok, you're saying that you are going to continue to "keep an eye" on her, and that "third opinions" will be needed in the future as a result or your "watching"?  That doesn't sound good at all: how about not "keeping an eye on her" and moving away from her instead?  You've been asked to do this many times since January, and yet it continues... Doc9871 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, that was a bit flippant of me. I've become involved in dispute resolution here; it'd be poor of me to wash my hands of the situation. Doc9871, calm down! I can't ban someone from being concerned about Wildhartlivie's approach to editing, can I? If you want to seek a formal interaction ban, WP:AN would be the place for that. If you do decide to do this, stay calm and to the point, provide clear evidence, and be aware that the WP:BOOMERANG effect could come into play. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll opine here. First off, Ken Anger's book is a poor source. I'm not going there. And rather than speak of WP:MEATPUPPETs, have a read of WP:TAGTEAM. Chowbok, please mellow some, and be patient. The key thing here is to be reasonable and to listen to input. Those who don't listen well end up in trouble. And Doc really does need to beware the boomerang. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) not specifically intending to tar ya, Rossrs ;) Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a case of tag teaming and I don't feel tarred. I tried to explain my position and quoted from guidelines.  Chowbok could have said "no I disagree because... " and quoted from other guidelines. I may have been wrong and was prepared for him to tackle me on my comments rather than who I am.   He commented about a "cabal' and didn't address the issue at hand, which was poor sourcing.   I was only objecting to the source, not the material.   I said that I didn't know or care who Claudette had sex with but that I was sure Hollywood Babylon was not considered a reliable source.   Here's a question - if you look at the stats for edits to Claudette Colbert, I've been editing that article off and on since 2004.  I'm the second highest contributor there.  I'm not a drive-by editor and it is on my watchlist.  Chowbok's Hollywood Babylon edit summary stuck out on my watchlist because to me it's about the worst source we could use.   So.... if it's wrong for an editor in theory to support WHL just because she's WHL, is it not equally wrong for an editor to dispute WHL just because she's WHL?  I only ask because Chowbok suddenly appeared to revert an edit she made, and I don't see anything to suggest his interest in the article.  There are two sides to the story and it's too easy for him to cry "cabal" when he sees something he doesn't like and it's particularly inappropriate when I tried to make a reasonable case on the talk page based on our guidelines, and supported by sourced content in another article. Rossrs (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've not read that whole talk page; not even looked, today; I looked half a day ago. I'm talking about long-term patterns of the same group reverting together on a lot of articles, and I've never seen you doing that. Sometimes this is fine; genuine vandalism or BLP issues (or bios of dead people;). But there's more than that, and it boils down to ownership, edit waring, consensus blocking (and all those naughty soks). fyi, I never had two accounts in the same discussion; ever. I tried to start over and was evading some AC restrictions. The word cabal would seem poorly chosen (by Chowbok); that's something else entirely. I've not looked, but certainly believe you that you've done a lot for that article; and I'm not even sure if I've ever edited it, although I may have tidied some things up. You've been here a long time and I respect that; Chowbok's been here a damn long time, too, and I respect that. Contribs are public for a reason; to allow others to check-up when they've concerns. At this point, few will really dispute that there are concerns about WHL's patterns of editing. I've globally opted-in to X!'s Edit Counter with the intent of transparency. This tool used to work for all without opt-in being required. You could, too. I believe that all editors of good faith should. I also see that your account is not unified; go to prefs and it's easy (unless those others are not you). I see no conflicts. Also, see a request I'm going to make to F&W, next.
 * WHL sorta agreed on MRG's talk; where ya want to take this? How about emailing me?
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, some of these points are off topic, so we should take them to either of our talk pages. Comments appreciated though.  I see Chowbok's choice of the word "cabal" to be more than "poorly chosen".  I see it as an accusation and it's the sort of thing that should be done carefully.  I explained my actions, gave supporting evidence and made no personal comment about Chowbok, and then his response was to dismiss everything because I'm part of a cabal.  Unacceptable.  I'll contact you later about the other points.  thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked further. Perhaps that Mann book F&W pointed at and you seem to be considering. The cabal comment gets at a wider concern and I can see how you feel stung, given your history on that page. It all should be discussed outside of the context of any specific article. That's what F&W is telling me; Chowbok, too, who should listen. I expect this affair-or-not question has come up before. Mostly I'm neutral regarding all this fascination with just what celebrities are familiar with each others bits. It's all about prurient interest. This is not the right page, either, as it lights up our host's orange-bar-of-annoyance. Talk to ya wherever. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, fancy seeing you here commenting on this one, Jack! I'm pretty good at avoiding a boomerang - thanks for the friendly advice.  You can reply to my talk page if you want to - I'm sure your "ears are burning".. Doc9871 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I care what you say? You're just trolling. And stay off my talk page. Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(after many EC) ::::For the record then I will repeat what I told Chowbok. I am trying to help WHL with not sounding so harsh. Others are too I believe. She doesn't mean to sound harsh but if you take a look she is trying real hard to soften her approach. I would like to also put on the record that the sock puppet case was cleared up. WHL had a one week block. During that time she and the other editor, who is her friend for years, sent ID to CU's to show that they are two different people. The socking was done by WHL friend and she admitted it and is now indefinitely blocked. There should be no more comments about the socking incidence. The time was served and proof submitted and she was allowed to return to edit. I think she is an excellent editor that just needs to soften her responses. I don't know what Chowbok thinks is so bad about WHL. If there is something to help with please let me know so I can help out. In closing, I don't think that Chowbok should be watching or following WHL at all, all that will do is cause problems we've already seen. Question: Fences and windows, what problems are you talking about? Thanks, I'm going offline til tomorrow, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that was not cleared up. The blocks of the socks still stand and their categorization is correct points right at her. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (tweaked Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
 * WHL has said many times proof has been submitted, but I have yet to see any admin confirm that. And if the accusation is that LaVidaLoca is a sock, LaVidaLoca's denial is not terribly convincing, for obvious reasons.


 * I've agreed to work on being more civil and less snarky. Simply watching her edits in itself is entirely legitimate, and I will continue to do so. I also note that she's watching my edits like a hawk: she immediately assumed an edit I made to my home page was about her and complained above. And that's fine! Editing lists aren't private and she's welcome to watch mine. Complaining about me watching hers while watching mine, though, seems just a tad unfair, don't you think?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, you seem to blame WHL for the fact that no public acknowledgment has been given to discuss the acceptance of the evidence she submitted, and I also wonder why the admin involved hasn't said something to clear the air and explain why he accepted her evidence. That's not WHL's doing and it's not the first time you've raised that point.  It's fair enough that you have concerns about that, but you need to speak to the admin involved instead of raising it as point against WHL.  Whatever your complaints are about WHL this particular one is not being controlled by her.  You should ask the admin and it's fair that the admin should offer some kind of reply.  I'm sure you're not the only one asking this question, and it's a reasonable one to ask. Rossrs (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See: Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive for what I believe to be the last on this; it's about User:Sara's Song; there is also User talk:LaVidaLoca, which I don't read as an endorsement of LVL's statement. FWIW, I don't believe WHL's socking at this point; if she ever does again, an indef will be swift. Jack Merridew 22:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe WHL is socking. My issue is with Chowbok raising the points about WHL still being allowed to edit and the evidence she submitted. She didn't lift her own block, and she didn't accept her own evidence.  That part of Chowbok's beef lies 100% with the admin who made the call. If Chowbok has "yet to see any admin confirm" the evidence submitted by WHL, why not just ask the admin? Have you approached the admin in question, Chowbok? That should at least help address some of your concerns.  Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Her week-long block wasn't 'lifted' it ran its course and expired. I think we're done here and you and I should have our own talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we're done here and I'll move along, but just so it's recorded here where I made the comment, you're right.  Expired and lifted are not the same.  Carelessly worded on my part. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Watch" away! Just try to be civil for civility's sake (most times you are not with WHL) the next time you interject at an article or thread you've "watched" her to... Doc9871 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly reasonable request, and I will try my best.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wildhartlivie, This is to inform you that a public flagellation is occurring at User talk:Fences and windows that might concern an incident in which you were involved. Thanks for the heads-up folks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Outdent. Wildhartlivie has some issues with ownership of articles, with getting into disputes, and with escalating conflicts beyond what is necessary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An old sockpuppet block is pretty irrelevant now, isn't it? Please stop this tit-for-tat and point scoring, before I indef block THE LOT OF YOU as my patience expires. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. Not really, but if felt good to type it.
 * I've been ec'ing and am posting some clarifications anyway. The new RfC will launch this week and my focus is there. Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I see this conversation went off track while I was gone. Jack, there is no tag teaming either so cut it out already.  I have some articles on my watchlist that is the same as WHL.  I also have some medical ones that are the same as some other editors, so what?  To Fences and windows, can you explain to me how you come to the conclusions you come to about WHL?  Just saying she has problems with ownership, etc. doesn't help. Also, where do you get this from, Jack, Chowbok?  They've been screaming this and other things about her from the rooftops for a long time.  Did they scream it long enough for it to now become truth?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, it'd be worth reading Tag team again. It's quite a good essay, with good advice on what to do when accused of tag teaming, including this: "A common problem on Wikipedia is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side"." My view of Wildhartlivie's editing is independent of Jackmerridew and Chowbok's accusations, feel free to disagree of course. She does get into more protracted disputes than would seem necessary, and has a tendency to not to drop the stick. See for example Talk:Frances Farmer, where she edit warred over the title of a talk section and took the other editor to AN/I, resulting in... nothing happening. I don't buy the explanation for the sockpuppetry, but you'd have to ask Lar to expand on his enigmatic statements to get anymore clarity on that - not that I care. None of this means I think she's a terrible editor or deserves to be followed around and harassed. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read that, I actually watched it during it's developement. :) I agree that she needs to drop the stick more often and I do tell her to when I take notice to it.  I'm glad that your opinion is free of outside influence, I thought it was but I guess I needed to hear it (read it).  I know more about the socking stuff, for the record, as I was involved in a lot of the off site conversations about it but you're right it's a non-issue and should not be brought up anymore.  I have to admit that I have great respect for WHL's editing abilities and go to her for help when I need it.  She really does listen to advice so if you see something all you have to do is go to her and let her know your opinion.  That being said, Jack and Chowbok have to drop their sticks and now.  Thanks for your explanation, I really do appreciate it, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

need a mop ;)
Hi. I've opted-in to X!'s Edit Counter. For my Jack account, I did this on meta, as it's unified. I can't do this for my past accounts as they're blocked and it's done via .js files which need a mop-bit to edit. Could you please do the en:route for my main accounts? See: User:Davenbelle, User:Moby Dick,  User:Diyarbakir. The others have few edits so it's of little value (do it if you want). None of the others are unified, so I think Meta inappropriate (and there are a few not-me User:Moby Dick's on far projects;, as I recall). As I said to Rossrs, I see this as something that all good faith editors should do. Thanks, Jack Merridew 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. WikiChecker performs a similar function as X!'s tool, btw. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; seems to be fine. I know WikiChecker; I've extensive bookmarks of tools; a lot of toolsever has rolled-over as they're killing inactive accounts. fyi, see Jack Lord filmography; Maile66 discarded all my clean-up and the sorting and went per the really poor examples he was pointed at; It was mess and a half and at odds with everything; I've cleaned it again; comment re sortability? He didn't use blue, either ;) Jack Merridew 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man. He forked the content to be able to include his own table formatting? Splitting the filmography table out hardly seems like something that helps readers. Discuss it at Talk:Jack Lord... Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hand-ball; I'm off for now. ;) Jack Merridew 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See sandbox work. Jack Merridew 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear like you are though I'm sorry to say. Anyways, if you wouldn't mind would you please ask Jack to stop stirring things up. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please except my apologies. I was out of line with my comment.  I am sorry I upset you with that comment.  I have stricken it.  That kind of behavior is beneath me so again please except my apologies for being so rude to you.  Sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Are you trying to work out if I'm "with you or against you"? You'd better stop treating this as a battle with sides, Crohnie. I'm not on your "side", I'm not on Jackmerridew's "side". I didn't say what format I preferred, I was commenting that someone splitting a filmography out in a new article when it's already been disputed and when the split seemingly does nothing to serve the reader doesn't seem like a good idea. Right, that's it. I'm fed up of this juvenile squabbling and point scoring. I'm out. Sort out your dispute yourselves. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the split off of the filmography was something that was included in the original assessment run down: "If you still feel the tables are too long, they can be spun off onto a separate and related article." The concern was that it was too extensive and long. That was back on June 24, after I was asked to look the article over, and upon which she began to work the same day. The work done included flipping the chronology from most recent through oldest to the converse, which was kindly pointed out by User:Chickenmonkey. And for the record, Jack, the "really poor examples he was pointed at" was directly to the Filmography template section. Look again at where it was linked. But you know, thanks for making it into yet something else for which you can blame me. What happened to supporting spin offs? I don't especially support it unless it is overwhelming the page. It was the editor's opinion that it was. Perhaps it did, it reduced the page content from 26,715 bytes to 18,238 bytes, thus it covered nearly a third of the page. That she chose the wrong example on that page was an error, that's all. But after this discussion, she left Wikipedia rather than be subjected to this sort of uproar. So much for trying to work up a good article for her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I really wish you would reconsider abandoning this. I appreciate your neutrality and from reading through all of this, wish you would stay involved. Thanks for your efforts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm liable to lose my temper now, and that'd get us nowhere. Doc9871 has contributed to ramping up the the combativeness of this dispute just as much as Chowbok has, including on my talk page, and Crohnie's comment was a final straw. I'm not going to try to resolve this if I'm thought to be biased. I respect Moonriddengirl and expect that her guidance on the RfC should facilitate a resolution. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A final thought: one can only be baited if one takes the bait. If Chowbok or Jackmerridew makes a comment that an editor believes is a sly allusion to their editing, the best thing to do is to ignore them. They want a reaction. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anything I can do or say to get you to change your mind? I really am sorry about my comment and would like for you to keep trying with this.  I promise to behave myself.  If you look at my history since being here you will see that what I did above is not normal behavior for me.  Please don't give up, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing Requested Moves
I notice you've closed a few requested moves lately. Although not an admin I do hang around there quite a lot and was wondering whether you were aware of Template:RM top and Template:RM bottom which is what is normally used to close requested moves. It's also not necessary to surround the movereq tag with &lt;nowiki&gt; as you can simply remove it. The way the requested move templates are set up ensures that a permanent record should be kept in the form of the line with the arrow in it. If you've deliberately done it the way you have then that's fine but I thought I'd let you know as I think there's some advantages to uniformity. An example of a more conventional close is here. Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read Requested moves/Closing instructions and decided not to bother with those templates, but I'll use them in future if it's expected (though the instructions don't say it is). Feel free to change those I've done if you like. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I say as long you're happy with it I am, it was just unusual to see them closed differently and wanted to make sure you're aware of them. Dpmuk (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

YoutTube/video fun
Not surprised. He tried using another inappropriate YouTube video on another article a month ago. Thanks for the clean up and advice. I'm actually happy with how the base is coming along so hopefully bringing it back for discussion down the road will get it topped off.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Lisztomania
Thanks for moving Lisztomania (movie) to Lisztomania. However, it seems the page Talk:Lisztomania (movie) did not get moved. This now leads to the curious situation that clicking on the "discussion" tab at Lisztomania will open Talk:Lisztomania (condition). Please move Talk:Lisztomania (movie) to Talk:Lisztomania. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, whoops. Thanks for pointing this out. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jesus Christ: The Musical
An editor has nominated Jesus Christ: The Musical, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ: The Musical and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Launched
The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario)
Thanks for moving Beechwood Cemetery. However Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario) was left behind, I assume inadvertently. Can this be moved to match the article when you have a chance? Also, since Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) now no longer redirects to a dab page, should it be speedily deleted? Station1 (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, ta, I thought I'd moved it too. Yes, I've deleted the now unused disambiguation page as housekeeping. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you implemented a Requested move differently than proposed and discussed. Could you please now restore the Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) page and its Talk page (which were located at Beechwood Cemetery until the Requested move was completed.  Your deletion of those is not consistent with the discussion.  If you disagree with the consensus of a discussion, you have the option to join in the discussion instead, but I think it is not proper for you to close the discussion in favor of a non-discussed alternative.


 * The impact of the disambiguation deletion/moves are showing up in the Daily Disambig today, is why i am noticing it immediately. This disambiguation was part of a structure of two disambiguation pages that sensibly covered the existing 2 wikipedia articles about places of each of two similar names, and allowed for more to be added as information comes forward about others being notable. It is not wrong to have a disambiguation page of 2 items.  Again, if u want to argue it is wrong, please cancel your close of the Requested Move discussion and state your views there. --doncram (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Actually i think it might be best to form one combo dab page covering places named Beechwood Cemetery and Beechwoods Cemetery, covering 4 items at first. So I will redirect from one of the disambiguation page names to the other.  But rather than creating a new page redirect, it would be more proper to have the page history and Talk page history in the record.  Please do restore the Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) that was deleted as a first step.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IAR. I implemented the discussed move, and then realised that there's no need for a disambiguation page. If more cemeteries by this name are thought to be notable, then there can be a disambiguation page, but with only two articles to disambiguate a hatnote suffices. If your only objection to what was done is based on bureaucracy, you're not going to convince me this was wrong. Of course, it doesn't take admin tools to recreate the disambiguation page, so if you're that insistent you can just go ahead and do it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point i have already created a combo dab page at Beechwoods Cemetery to cover them both. I think i got all the entries on the deleted page.  But rather than create a redirect at Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) to this combo page as a brand new page, it would be preferred to have the old page there and its Talk page and their histories.  So that the history will be clear in the future, and so that as other articles on places of this name get created it will be possible to resume a separate dab page if appropriate.  It's now just a matter of restoring history in place.


 * About IAR, i don't know what to say. If you have to invoke IAR to justify actions that go counter to consensus in a Requested Move, well you should not be closing that Requested Move.  Please just restore the article and redirect it to the combo dab page, or allow me to.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you care so much. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Now i am confused. First another editor (Skeezix) recreated the dab page, noting that was the consensus, and in fact i see that was discussed in detail in the requested move, and I rather agree that is preferable to the combo dab page.  However, it still lacks the proper history.  It would fix things if u would restore the history.  Any proposal to merge the 2 similarly-named topics into one dab page can be discussed later / separately.  If you refuse to restore the history, I will just drop it as I don't know in particular that the history is very interesting or important.  Note, I can't see it.  But I would appreciate if you would make the fix.   And then Skeezix saw the combo i created and did a redirect.  Still, to get back to the correct treatment would best be done by restoring the history. --doncram (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already restored the history. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what happened. The disambig history had got muddled up, it was in the deleted history of Beechwood Cemetery. It is now back where it should be. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to my request so fully and doing that. I don't know if there was meaningful history in the corresponding Talk page, too?  If so, just to complete this it would be nice to see that placed at Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation), currently a redlink.  If not I would recreate the Talk page to include at least  and  and a pointer to the previous Requested move discussion at Talk:Beechwood Cemetery.  Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was nothing worth saving, just redirects and a notice of the RM discussion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! --doncram (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the talk page move. Just for the record, I think what you did in closing the original proposal was completely correct. I just recreated the redirect from Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario), only because there are still several incoming links to the title. Station1 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia&. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. avs5221(t&#124;c) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my submission. It was on behalf of someone who put it at WP:RM. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use your opinion
Hi, I just read the Mel Gibson article for the first time. I put up a question at the talk page here. I could really use an opinion of an experienced editor like you about whether these section are too much for a biography of a living person. If you have time, it would be appreciated since I am still learning about BLP issues. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, he was in the news again today, right? I'll take a look. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Jeff Caponigro
Well... I took that spamy piece and made it something much more neutral and encyclopedic. And, not finding any about his acting anywhere other than on his own website, I removed the acting stuff as unverifiable... sticking to facts as could be cited. It appears his work is definitely of note in his industry, as they always cite him and quote him, and he has found his way into numerous books as a "paragon" in his field. What say? Worth a keep for further improvement, with a very careful watch-eye so the spam does not return?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will have this one on watch myself... as the guy is IN the biz of PR, and apparently feels his late-in-life turn to acting and voice-work is worth bragging about, even when unverifiable. I suspect the SPAs Rymillcap and Lmurley may well be associated with the fellow... so we'll just have to see might return with a singleness of purpose.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work on this. It's on my watchlist (as is every damn article I edit), so I might spot shennanigans. I've dropped COI notices on their talk pages. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... looking at the histories, and their lack of response on talk pages, these two may not be back. But someone else may, as PR is this guy's business. And thanks much for the CATS.  I was about to do it myself and saw you beat me to it. Nice job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Casey Reed
Did you check the page history before you deleted this? There was a lot of content at that title which had recently been removed. Hut 8.5 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-trout. Restored, speedy notice removed, blanking reverted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked a question here. . Yes, that's exactly how he treats editors, especially newbies. Malke  2010  16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, do you have any examples? Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to find ya some. Malke 2010  17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make diffs when threads have been archived. I can tell you the dates and times on different pages, like Karl Rove archive #8, 1713 1 Sept 2009.  Or, a recent AN/I thread. I just don't know how to open an archive and make a diff. Malke  2010  18:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Go to the history of the page rather than the archive, or just link to the archive section. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent an email. Don't know how to find AN/I threads.  The history there doesn't show what I'm looking for.  So much traffic on that page, it quickly goes past 500 edits which is the limit. Malke  2010  21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * . Malke 2010  13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into the dispute between you and Jusdafax. Other admins are already involved, I fail to see how my involvement would help. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a dispute w/him. You asked if that is the way he responds, and in my experience, yes, that is the way he talks to people.  You asked for examples, so I found some.  It's just FYI. Malke  2010  14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Split/Merge of Notability (criminal acts)
Fences&Windows, thanks for your reply in RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?. Although I've put up a formal RfC and asked for feedback in Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts), Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and Village pump (policy), your response is the only one I've received so far. There haven't been any objections to the split/merge, however, I'm hesitant to do so with a consensus of two. Do you think it would violate WP:CANVASS if I directly contacted those who voiced an opinion in our earlier discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)? Location (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that'd probably be OK, as you don't know whether those people will agree or disagree with your proposal. You could also contact those who edited or commented on the criminal acts notability guide: . Here's those who commented on WP:EVENT:. These are the people who most care about notability in general: These are the people who care about notability of people: Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and the suggestions! Cheers! Location (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks
That was quite gracious of you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Project Clear Vision Film
Jonvanv - I am the director of the film and the author of the article about the film. I would like to ask that you restore the page to my user area so that I may work on improving the article.

I feel that the article is worthy of inclusion because it sheds light on several factual events that had not be previously explained in Wikipedia (i.e. the possible connection between the anthrax attacks and Larry Ford). The film does have a listing in IMDB but that does not contain the detail that the Wikipedia article did. It is my belief that all the material is necessary for those researching these secret government projects to obtain a full picture of the persons and events involved.

Jonvanv (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's now at User:Jonvanv/Project Clear Vision (film). Be aware that the purpose of Wikipedia is not advertising. Wikipedia writes about things that have been noted by independent reliable sources. If you cannot find significant coverage of your film in reliable sources, no amount of work will make it suitable for inclusion. And the sources have to be about the film itself, not its subject matter. Please read WP:V, WP:N, and WP:COI. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this. The point was not advertising, the point was to help others understand the low budget independent film making process and to shed light on possible links between government agencies and projects connected to the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Jonvanv (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter is also not the purpose of Wikipedia. You're treating Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote your theories. If you can't find any outside sources that discuss your film, I'll either speedily delete it as advertising or propose it for deletion via WP:MFD. You've got a week to show that this could be a viable article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link
Just to let you know I fixed the link on your ANI comment to point at the correct Systemic bias link. Exxolon (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ta. I wondered why it didn't look like what I'd typed in... Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Johann hari
Hi - could you come back over to the Johann Hari page if you have a moment? the user Fae is being quite rude and upsetting towards me... she has taken out Hari's response to HonestReporting and is proposing odd double standards...David r from meth productions (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not really interested in that debate any more. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush
Per your final warning on their talk page, I am alerting you of this anti-religious rant, that is disruptively asking for scientific sources regarding a religious article. Seems they've thrown your warning to the wind.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's saying that you can't report religious stories as though they are historically accurate without outside confirmation, and this is correct. I don't think what he was saying crossed the line into "anti-religious rant" or was disruptive. PiCO edited the article since then along the lines of Cush's concerns, and it looks balanced to me. Try to avoid the temptation to label every comment you disagree with as an attack. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I could say the same to you. I am an uninvolved editor here, and this is the only comment of this user that I reported to you.  I have not reported many, only one.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but his comment was a fair comment on the article content and not an attack or rant, even if it could have been put better. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And reading through it now, I agree with you. Next time, I'll be sure it's an attack before reporting it.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
--Dc987 (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder
Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! -- Diannaa TALK 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

interaction bans
Interaction bans are about dispute prolongation, not dispute resolution. They are short sighted and amount to addressing the noise, not the issues. Consider, for a moment, what an interaction ban requires: editors must review each others editing constantly, must review page histories prior to editing. They produce a sort of hostile no-contact dance. You have effectively moved this up to the next level; either it evolves into a Community ban for one of us, or I take it all the way through dispute resolution. I've fought long and hard to return and have no intention of accepting further restrictions. Jack Merridew 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should've thought of this before posting at AN/I. You've brought this on yourself. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you should have thought more about what you were doing before calling my suggestion that this move to RfC/U an 'escalation'. The Dispute Resolution process is about seeking resolution, not escalation. Bad call, by a n00b sysop. Anyway, it's not going to fly. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I support this interaction ban for both of you. Neither of you will back off, neither of you will talk to each other civilly and it's just out of control.  Wildhartlivie putting up a retired tag didn't stop it even.  You still had this need to unblank her subpage.  Don't you see that maybe if the two of you have no interactions other than the RFC and mediation there is a chance that maybe both will come to a conclusion?  Note:  I did ask at AN/i that mediation also be added as to be allowed.  Come on Jack, usually if editors stay away from each other for like 3 months with no more problems things actually do get better. I hope you change your mind.  If I can help, please don't hesitate, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack Merridew, AN/I is not part of dispute resolution. You dragged Wildhartlivie to AN/I to try to get her into trouble, which is pretty childish. So don't try to lecture me about dispute resolution - you've got a lot to learn on that front - and don't try to insult me by calling me a "n00b sysop". I will strongly oppose you whenever you eventually do your ill-fated run at RfA. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can take it. And any RfA would be about me having tools to do work for this project. I don't need no stinkin' badges to have an influential voice here. You recall that I supported your RfA? Jack Merridew 02:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't give a damn whether you supported me at RfA; Wikipedia doesn't work by scratching backs or patronage! And I couldn't care less about your supposed "influential voice": Wikipedia is not about winning. You're treating Wikipedia like a political game, not a collaborative encyclopedia. Surely you didn't read Wikipedia is an MMORPG and take it seriously, did you? Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't read that as I intended; I supported you despite some concerns re ARS, which seem largely in the past. I felt you would be a net-positive, so I supported. My 'voice' is listened to by a lot of people, because when I take a firm stance on something, I'm right. I've been ridiculing MMORPG since before you were on this site, *that's* the meaning of the sidebar on my talk page, which dates from 2005. It's about what good for the project, not about winning or being nice, or fair. Your talk page, so I'm done here. Jack Merridew 01:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep saying you have an "influencial voice" here and friends in high places. How about naming some of these people for us so we know who they are?  You are being totally disrespectable to Fences and windows here.  You are acting like you are the new Godking of wikipedia.  You have gotten away with behavior you show here, canvassing multiple times (which you are still doing by directing people to the new RFC and to the old RFC but with a clause to look for your correct version of things) and some other behaviors unbecoming of any editor.   This is a collaborative encyclopedia and I would like to suggest you think about that and what Fences and window is saying to you.  Tell it straight, are you only going to be happy when you and your friends get WHL removed from the project?  How about the rest of us that you keep slamming?  Will the project be better without the input of editors who just happen to disagree with you?  Like I said, I'm tired of it all.  I am out of it.  Yes I know I've said this before, but comments like this need alternate comments.  So far I see your screaming ownership, ownership is finally becoming the catch word you so hoped would be caught.  Well good work, now you have others screaming it too, without even checking the history of all all of this.  I find this totally bad and unacceptable behavior.  Have fun Jack, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Slightly Off-Topic - I am confused. How on earth is this even going on? This is an admitted and active sockpuppet ("street-legal"? I don't see any merit of "jokey" edits like this actually "improving" WP one tiny bit). Is this all some big joke? Seriously, I haven't clue, but what the hell? I can't see the point in the double standard of allowable socks, really... Doc9871 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "Illegals Program"
See Talk:2010 Russia – United States prisoner swap for some details on the choice of the original name for the article and what the long-term name should be. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? I know there's a discussion, I started the RM! What specifically am I supposed to be reading there? Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson article
Hi, great job on this article. Sorry I haven't had time to do anything to that article. I appreciate you taking the time to though. Thank you, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, there's probably still tweaking and source checking to do. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you did so much work to the article I would appreciate if you could take the time to look at this. Will BeBack returned the info so I have also left him a message about my questioning the use of youtube.com.  Thanks again for your time and energy, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Queen Latifah
Categories that involve ethnicity have to have a reliable source. That's a rule that has been a in place for a long time. I have no problem with the categories being there she is obviously of African American but that needs a source. She clearly isn't just African American.Mcelite (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'd better find sources saying that people are not African-American before you start removing any more categories. Focussing on African-Americans make it look like you have an agenda. She self-identifies as African-American, which you could have found out quickly: '"I'm African-American, and sometimes we don't get the nominations," she says, matter-of-factly.' Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * She's currently doing the same for Ciara. She finds a celebrity with a drop of whatever and uses IMDB for a source and turns around and remove their main category, African American. If she thinks she's anything else besides black, she needs a reliable source as well instead of removing categories. Georgia Peachez (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Taylor Ann Hasselhoff (2nd nomination)
I am in total agreement that Taylor Ann has not yet established an independent notability... but in consideration of the sources that do cover her, and for what, might you agree to consideration of a redirect to David Hasslehoff where she and that burger video already have a sourced and further sourcable mention?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe... It's not how I'd want to be known. I know there's sources that mention her in connection with this, and I removed a link to the video before nominating. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... redirect or no, she is sourced in her dad's article. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Text barnstar
Thanks for your work at Toilet Seat Riser or Toilet Riser and its AfD. Good job. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
I'd like to thank you for your kind involvement in user:Gilabrand block's review. From my own experience I know how important it is, if somebody simply understands you, even if this somebody cannot help you. Eventually we were able to reach an agreement and here is the result.Although I agree that Gila's edit violated her topic ban, but I am sure that she did it not because she wanted to violate, but because sometimes it is hard to draw a line, what one allowed, and what one does not allowed to edit. So, once again I thank you for your kindness and your understanding! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Since you have dealt with previous disruption from this account, I invite you to WP:AN/I. If you are online, please weigh in. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

IPU
Why did you remove the HaHa only serious link? It may suck that some editor killed off the pages content and turned it into a redirect, but the concept link is still worth making. --Belg4mit (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the concept link is not worth making, it has absolutely no relevance for the reader. Everyone knows what "humorous mock-serious" means without being sent to read an article on hacker jargon. Just because you like the phrase isn't a good reason to keep the link. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And there never was a page at Ha ha, only serious. Oh, I see, it was deleted six year ago at Articles for deletion/Ha ha only serious. "Some editor" would be "consensus at VfD", right? Wikipedia doesn't exist to mirror hacker lore. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brain Shift toy.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Brain Shift toy.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's used again now; Samlaptop's IP sock had swapped to another image shortly to be deleted at Wikimedia Commons. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Signatures_of_living_persons
Signatures_of_living_persons. I have already directed a couple of people to this essay and it seems to get support, is it possible to promote it to a guideline or is it to be ket as an essay, just wondering as I think it is concise and well written. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to rush things, I think it's good to get feedback before making a formal proposal and having it crash and burn! Collect raised as an objection that might need addressing, and someone else said that the bit about human rights might be a bit much and I may be inclined to agree with them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows/Benik Afobe
FYI. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta. When he's super super famous I'll make everyone eat their words, and then they'll be sorry!!!!!! Goes off in a sulk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He'll almost certainly be notable fairly soon, so you'll probably just be able to drop the article back into mainspace with a few additions. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some local press and even an article in The Sun when he was 15, I'm sure as soon as he starts with Arsenal he'll tip clearly over the notability bar. I reckon most England national under-17 football team players end up notable - half of the 2009 team have articles and only one of the 2007 team is now a red-link. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry
I am sorry about the edit summary but I don't remember what I wrote. I will be nice and write good edit summaries from now on, though. In fact, I will not edit at all for 24 hours as a form of self control and self punishment. Self punishment is always more effective than punishment from daddy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you accept my sincere apologies? I will renew the self punishment for another 24 hours. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am so ashamed and you are making me feel even worse by not responding. I will not edit for 48 hours, okay? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure you wear one of these too. Seriously though, don't beat yourself up about it. I didn't see your second note before: of course I accept your apology and there's no need to 'self punish', though short breaks can reduce Wikistress. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind checking this out?
Hi, please see here. I haven't removed it for violations of all sorts yet but I am hoping you know of a way to stop this kind of disruption on this article, Dawn Wells. There is an editor who keeps ranting about this, apparently for years yet consensus goes against adding this material into the article. Rossrs knows more about this than I do. As you can see the ranting and soapboxing is so over the top but just deleting it won't really help as I think the editor will just return with more or revert it back. Is there something more that can be done to stop this kind of behavior? Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can stop that kind of behaviour by not imposing ridiculous censorship on the article. I am astonished that there is not even the briefest mention of this noteworthy incident, which has masses of coverage in reliable sources. The IP editor is quite correct in their analysis, if not their approach. Whitewashing biographies is a bad idea. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you saying that I am doing this kind of behavior? I just wanted you to take a look, did I do something wrong here?  Completely confused, sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the reason this behaviour is happening is because of understandable frustration at censorship of the article. Their diatribe is over the top, but it is relatively harmless and I am looking beyond symptoms to the cause. You have not directly done anything wrong, but you have contributed to a decision that has led to this situation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What iVoted against was the inclusion of this this version. Maybe I should have made other suggestions but I didn't.  You make it sound like it's my fault or patially my fault for the soapboxing and rants going on.  I have barely edited this article and I only happened across it because the iVote showed up on my watchlist.  I don't care either way whether it's in or not but the way it was put into the article is a breach of biographies of a living person but moreso against undo weight.  I came to you because you have a level head about things and I thought you would handle things properly, including the soapboxing.  Sorry if you think I was still at fault about this.  I'll not comment anymore about this, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my reaction, it was over-the-top. Perhaps my head wasn't too level today, it's muggy here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was just surprised by your reaction but I do understand muggy. I live in Florida, it's been hot and muggy here too.  I was mostly concerned because you're comment to me was posted to the talk page and it makes me sound horrible.  Thank you for clearing this up. Stay in the a/c, that's what I try to do.  :)  All is well, take care,  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I for one am thankful to Crohnie for bringing it to your attention, and to you for bringing it up on the Administrators' noticeboard. —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, well, what happened happened. It's at BLPN now, not ANI. I don't think we need to discuss this any further here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian McGinlay
I notice your contribution to talk:Dawn Wells saw some common sense quickly prevail.

If you are not too busy would you look at Brian McGinlay? This is another BLP which is being whitewashed in similar fashion, contrary to WP:WELLKNOWN. By the same culprits, sad to say.

Thanks 90.207.76.207 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not a puppet of IPs. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? Thanks 90.207.76.207 (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It means I'm not at your beck and call. Do read WP:CANVASS. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Wp:BITE? Fool 90.207.76.207 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this rather uncivil abrogation of your admin duties should remain here as a warning to others! 90.207.76.207 (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this IP is simply here to disrupt and not to contribute, he is attacking you and has been attacking others, me included. I suggest having a quick look through his twenty or so edits and forming an early opinion as it will likely continue until it is dealt with. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP has taken a bit off issue with my discussion with him/her on BLP articles and it's spread from there. I am confused by this page history though - the comment above was added by Eliteimp  (who is also now active on the BLP board) but then the IP removed his sign and signed it himself. surreal. (@fences; sorry for dragging you in here...) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Apple Inc. slogans
On the AfD for this article, it was brought up several times that the unsourced should be deleted if kept. One user even said "Wikipedia's verifiability policy allows (if not encourages) the deletion of most of the article pending proper sourcing". So, what I am doing is not disruptive (and I resent the accusation) it is within policy. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive if you keep doing it. Verifiability doesn't mean everything has to be cited right now. Why not do some work on sourcing, or are you allergic to finding sources? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence would have worked just fine without the last second jab. Anywho, I know nothing about Apple Computers or their advertising campaigns.  I would try, but I am at present working on my pet project to get it to FA status, so my time to work on other projects is limited at best.  I recommend it go back to WP:ARS where they can add some sources to the page or to another page.  I am not at all against commenting out the unsourced sections until sources can be found and a note posted on the talkpage notifying people of that. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just lighting this up again. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright fella, keep your hair on. You knowing nothing about a topic should be no impediment to writing about it! See WP:AMNESIA. The time you spent trying to get the article deleted could've been spent on improving it, you know. Sure, I think those who argued for keeping the article should source it (and Colonel Warden did already do some), but for better or worse Wikipedia is a volunteer service. I will chip in and source some, coz I'm nice like that. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a start on the Apple II slogans, that wasn't too tricky. One was unverifiable, another wasn't a slogan, and I found two more. p.s. I know next to nothing about Apple's advertising and have no particular love of the company. I've never owned an Apple product other than an iPod Shuffle that died after I put it through the washing machine. My only experience in using Apple computers was Power Macs (ugh, constant crashing) and the laptop of a flatmate. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. Considering your own mass creation of radiostationcruft, I'm surprised that you would describe the list as "Trivial fan-cruft" in your nomination. Cruft is in the eye of the beholder, and you seem happy to hold others to standards you have ignored in creating your own articles. If it wasn't terribly WP:POINTy, I'd be tempted to batch nominate all your radio station sub-stubs as non-notable.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are going to go into threats, I think this is where we move on. Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, what threat? I don't respect your mass stub creation as you've made no effort to demonstrate notability of these local stations or make use of secondary sources, but I have no intention of trying to delete any of them as I made clear when I cited WP:POINT. My point was that you should not call other people's work "cruft" if you don't want your own minority interests to be criticised in the same fashion. You don't like it when the tables are turned, do you? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, just don't let people who get all pissy and make threats. This started with the line "are you allergic to finding sources?"....wasn't necessary. Now you bring up mass nom'ing over 200+ articles I have created, it is meant to piss someone off. As an admin, you need to WP:AGF and CHILL, otherwise WP:Wikibreak. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making any threats, you need to read more carefully. Calling me "pissy" is pointless: lecturing someone and attacking them at the same time isn't going to persuade them of the merits of your argument. WP:AGF is a red herring as I'm sure you're editing in good faith, though you seem to need to read it again as you're assuming that I was actively threatening to delete "your articles" when I made no such threat. I just disagree with your approach: you started off poorly by calling the list "Trivial fan-cruft", you badgered Colonel Warden repeatedly, you made no effort at all to find sources yourself (see WP:BEFORE) and then you repeatedly removed content once you didn't get the article deleted while making ORDERS in your edit summary ("ONLY add them back WITH sources, not otherwise"). How very collegiate of you. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agenda?
Hi Fences and windows, I found it quite offensive that you accused me of having an agenda. If you have a problem take it up with me not another editor that didn't understand why I did something. Thank You.Mcelite (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are targetting African-Americans, and you admit as much on your user page: "I have a strong interest in African American and Native American history, and I don't like people's heritage being over-looked especially people who have African American heritage and another that isn't mentioned, which is a current issue in my country the United States." That looks like an agenda to me. Your comment about Queen Latifah that "She clearly isn't just African American" also shows you're using your own personal opinion rather than relying on sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mcelite, I see you didn't add the African American category on Aaliyah's page, but you're so quick to add the Native American one. Besides she's not half Native American anyway, she's more like 25%. You need to get real. Georgia Peachez (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Explicit removed Category:African American singers in August 2009:. Seems odd, especially as a friend of her, the editor of Vibe, said "Aaliyah's background is African-American, and she is of the generation whose names are largely taken from African names." Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mcelite don't want to see that. She thinks every lightskinned person in the world with long hair (or extentions) is non-black (Native American) lol. And why would he do that, it's just like saying Wesley Snipes isn't dark. Georgia Peachez (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I'm coming off the wrong way. My agenda is not to add Native American categoreis to every category that has someone with African American descent. It is wikipedia policy that ethnicity must have citation from a reliable source and it is unfair that to assign ethnic categories because of people's opinion on how someone should look in order to claim ethnicity (the sky is blue). I didn't add the categories for Aaliyah for either African American or Native American because I was told not too. Check the history if you don't believe me. I consider AA just as important as NA. Once again I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to say that every AA is mixed or anything in that direction. I do find it biased that those categories are sometimes held over others that are just as important dispite admixture. I would be surprised if an editor wanted to removed categories from Della Reese even though she is half and half. I'm not looking to be mean or disruptive. If I was I could remove every single category from people with African American descent that doesn't cite their ethnicity. I believe that is cruel, unconstructive, and a waste of time.Mcelite (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I think you just need to proceed with a little more care. I agree that ethnicity, relgion, sexual orientation and other similar categorisations should be well sourced and never been based on "but they look black", "but they sound gay" etc. However, because removing such a category can be sensitive we should take the time to check for sources first. Miscategorising someone can be offensive, but equally removing a category unfairly can offend too! I did find sources for Aaliyah and Queen Latifah being African American, but I cannot find reliable sources suggesting that Aaliyah had Native American descent; Aaliyah Remembered by William Sutherland is self-published (Trafford Publishing is a print-on-demand self-publishing house), and although it is "common knowlege" on the web that Aaliyah's grandmother Mintis L. Hicks Hankerson was part Native American, this is not reliably sourced. Also, note that the category Category:African American people is not meant as a label that someone is wholly African American (see Barack Obama). Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell Dan Smith
...and a Russell Dan Smith did then file legal proceedings against the WMF. This is technically inaccurate. The defendant in the lawsuit filed by Smith was the US Department of Homeland Security for refusing to investigate Wikipedia's ties to terrorism. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. He only said the WMF was a bunch of terrorist-enablers. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles
For your information, I have made a proposal at Wikiquette alerts that I intend reopeing the discusions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles after starting a thread at WP:Village pump/Policy about the issue revealed in the discussion "Example: Jan Smuts in the Boer War" about segmented article titles and their interaction with WP:UNDUE. If you would like to participate in the thread, let me know. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I can't stop you. It'd help if you defined what "segmented titles" actually means. The problem with some of the Jan Smuts articles is that they're written as personal reflections; the titles are a secondary matter. But the existence of the articles is fine, due to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and you're on to a loser if you're trying to change policy to rule out the existence of such articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just read again what your point was in that section. Oh. My. God. You really don't understand, do you? The article Jan Smuts in the Boer War is not an improper synthesis between Jan Smuts and Second Boer War, it is a section of a more indepth biography of the man. Your objection to the existence of such article has nothing to do with the article titles and everything to do with your own particular idiosyncratic view of Wikipedia. "The effect of the restrictions placed upon the scope of coverage is that the article title Jan Smuts in the Boer War gives undue weight to Smuts role in the war over and the other participants" would be funny if you weren't serious; it's an article about Jan Smuts in the Boer War, of course it focusses on his role in the Boer War! Stop trying to misuse the article titles policy. If you reopen this debate you'll get no better response than you did before. Do try to learn something from what others tell you. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. "there is no such article as Roosevelt and the Big Deal, Hitler and World War II or Stalin and the Purges." Joseph Stalin in World War II. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For your information, I have opened a thread at Village_pump_(policy) using this example.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
--  S undefined ulmues (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|Freikorp}

Icon group Publishing
Thank you for the comment on my page regarding Icon Group Publishing. I didn't know these citations from Icon Group Publishing was copied from wikipedia. I thought as a publishing group it would be a credible source. I will not cite from the organisation again. RegardsFionaven (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Good catch: both had "[WP]" in the entries. I think the info is true, but just needs a better source so you did the right thing. I think in both cases I was just doing a google book search to try to add a citation and got that hit. What also scares me a bit is that within seconds of my checking in a change, it shows up in a google web search as the first result. It is too bad that Google puts those books in their database, while many historic volumes I would really like to see because they are rare are only given with title only. Any chance we can contact someone at Google books and get them to downgrade the books? W Nowicki (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. People tried with Alphascript Publishing and Amazon and got nowhere. Once I am done cleaning out these references I'll think how to widen awareness of this and how to get Google to flag these somehow. Perhaps we could have an edit filter to warn editors entering the term "Icon Group" or "Webster's Quotations". I will also go back through all the articles and give them a once over and try to find sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to do something, I suspect this problem will increase. If we can just add a filter so it shows up in the edit summary, that would help. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I am lazy and your method seems to be working - what search criteria are you using to find these? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually nearly done, only about 20 to go. I'm just searching for "Webster's Quotations". There might be some others that mangled the title and any bare links will be impossible to find. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

George M
Thanks much for the information about the Icon Group, I'll be sure to keep that info handy.JeanColumbia (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Danni Stark
I noticed you did that, but I reverted your edit. Then I got the message you sent me with a detailed explanation. So sorry for that. I would ask however, in this case, you don't leave the page a mess. You removed the citation, but it was used for antoher claim on the page, leaving the references messed up with a huge citation error message. If you wish to remove it again, please use ref number 1, to cite the claim as it also has a similar quote backing the claim up. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm removing a lot of these references, and generally I am checking how I leave the article, adding tags as appropriate, categories, etc. So apologies that I broke the format this time, but I am actually taking care. I am contacting those who added these sources not just to educate them on this publisher, but also so they can follow up by correctly sourcing these article - with so many articles affected, I do not have time to source them all as I go. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well aslong as you are, if there are any more refs of these kind removed from Home and Away, Hollyoaks or NEIGHBOURS, especially the latter... notify me please. Me and another editor will correct that. I know it's easy to make the mistake you did, whilst editing huge bulks... so that's fine. I only took issue in this instance because another citation in the topic could prove it, it's rather dishearting editors aren't interested in adding to an article, but removing... While I am here, also, is it just this one book publication that is unreliable? Also I assume you have been to the reliable notice board? I'd like to see the concensus. Thank you again and happy editing, you're obviously trying to improve and make everything verifiable... I prefer to get everything 100% in our wikiprojects RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 23:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, then please do, but I am 100% certain that these sources are worthless! See the little [WP]? It means it is from Wikipedia: I am not "removing" anything from the article as that citation has no value and is a circular reference citing Wikipedia using itself; thus, I am actually adding by not deceiving readers into believing that a fact is sourced when it is not. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just would rather you improve the article therefore by removing false info, two seconds it take with a google search to see if the info is true or not.. improving wikipedia is the goal. With Danni Stark you still didn't cite ref one when I asked you, if you were to remove the ref again. I just wanted to see a past discussion of the source in question... not create a new one. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look: I've not removed anything and I've dealt with 50 articles with this problem today, and I have maybe 150 more to go. I do not have time right now to source all these articles, and I have done nothing to harm the article. The citation should never have been used in the first place. You could go look for sources instead of having a futile argument with me - it seems like you want to shoot the messenger. I have said that I will go back through when I am done, but you cannot insist that I do work to source this article right now. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully support the removal of anything sourced to Icon and other publishers who simply republish our articles. I can understand it annoying individual editors, but if they have an interest in an individual article then I'm afraid it really is up to them to work on. This happens when there is a problem like this that involves large numbers of articles. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Brewis
Thanks for your note. I don't believe that I've used them for anything else. I see you've tagged the article as poorly sourced. Whilst I've derived most of the material from Peter's website, there is no evaluative/judgmental material so I don't think there is anything libellous, peacock or weasel. The most extreme claim to success he's made is to have won an Olivier Award and that is confirmed on the Olivier site. Various other material is confirmed by e.g. his already being mentioned by independent Wiki editors in various articles, the details of some items on Amazon mentioning him as composing music for a film or TV series, or a Hawkwind fan site which mentioning Swan Revived in a write up of HW's 1973 tour. Not the standard of source needed for a GA, but no reason to remove the material either. Someone with a collection of British television and radio comedy should be able to confirm the rest, but I don't have that stuff. I started the article after Peter answered a question on cix on how to interpret music publisher's notation that I needed in Twice Through the Heart which I was pushing up to GA standard. Should the BLP requirements crank up further, I'll look at this again but for now I'm happy for the tag to sit there and for me to get on with my current GA and FA plans.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm making no judgement on the rest of the article. I saw that it had a bio reference, but of course independent sourcing is always to be preferred, hence the tag. I'm not removing anything but glaringly poor info while I'm doing this, as in most cases editors are simply adding the reference and not the fact it is supporting, so it would be unfair to gut articles just because they had the misfortune to be duped by Philip M. Parker and his computer. Once I done with this I'll follow up on these articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Serena Armstrong-Jones, Viscountess Linley and icon group
You were correct. One of the references I added to Serena Armstrong-Jones, Viscountess Linley, had a [WP] after it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus (organization)
''Hello. In April you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for the heads-up about Icon Group; I hadn't noticed that. I did a little more digging on the quote (which I should have done the first time), and came up with a reliable source which predates both Icon Group and Wikipedia (James Corcoran, Bitter Harvest: Gordon Kahl and the Posse Comitatus, 1990, Viking). The tiny difference in wording between the two (Parker/Icon's "rose to power" instead of Corcoran's "took power") suggests, to me at least, a rather feeble intent to skirt copyright-excerpting practices. (Indeed, the reason I'd quoted the text is that I'd been doing a drive-by sourcing job and hadn't wanted to rub two brain cells together to do a proper rephrasing. This time I at least checked to ensure I had the oldest Google-Books-recorded instance of these words.) In the future, I'll try to be more careful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to concur with the thanks given above and state that I too will be more careful in the future. Gaoidheal (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Well done on finding the original source. The Wikipedia wording certainly came directly from that book in the first place, so it's great to have it properly attributed now. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam
Hello. In January you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Might be worth bringing it up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 08:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No URL to block: they use Google Books :-( Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

F. Hiner Dale
Thanks, I keep them in mind as a circular reference. I see if I can find some other cites for this F. Hiner Dale Blackash   have a chat 10:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Elliot Aronson article reference
Thanks for pointing out the dodgy ref. It's instructive to learn that I'd been taken in. The ref didn't do much work so I don't think the text needs to change, but I will seek improved, multiple refs. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Khosrov bey Sultanov
Tuscumbia ( talk ) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grieg's music in popular culture
O.K. Yes, I have seen that circular ciation before. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman
The Icon Group reference mistake was an atempt to cite existing text. I didn't add it, but attempted to save the infformation as it appeared to be accurate. Thanks for correcting it.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use your help...
Hi, if you have time I could use your help with this article and the editors involved. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. i really appreciate it. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Making claims that their products help with autism is a definite no-no. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic
I think you misinterpreted the off topic template at the art student scam article. Several articles believe that the China section is off topic while several others believe the espionage section is off. Does that make sense for the tag?

Personally, I would be happy with two articles now but support for that on the talk page is also divided.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an article about art student scams in general, so neither is off topic. Splitting is not going to work, the solution from the AfD was to widen the scope to include all such scams and really should have been the end of it. I despair at this incessant squabbling. The "Israeli" scam in the US gets most space as it has most sources, so that's not an WP:UNDUE concern. p.s. I am not wearing my admin hat when editing or commenting on that article, I am involved. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even realize you wee an admin (not that you don;t act like it I just didn't realize). I totally disagree about the weight thing since it turns into an article about espionage instead of a con. That's just my take of course. One thing I have noticed is that other typically pro-Israel editors want to reduce the spy thing as well and it makes sense to me why (thoughts on undueweight) while other editors want more of it in (since the story at least is notable). I don't think a middle ground is possible here since the views are so conflicting and even policy/guideline based to certain extents. I tried adding info for both but that was too much for some editors and not enough for others so I am firmly under the belief that we should expand it but in an article catering to espionage. That is more of a conversation for the talk page of course but seeing a couple comments about white washing got me all knee-jerk.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really do many admin duties... Have you read the AfD? I think any attempt to recreate an article solely about that alleged espionage case would be met by howls of anguish from pro-Israeli editors, who would promptly take it to AfD once more. This compromise of a single article about art student scams is the best approach, I'm sure. I'm not sure there are huge amounts more to be said about the alleged spy ring; what should be done is to dig up sources about other examples of the art student scam to expand the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I might have even voted delete on it but have changed my mind after seeing so many sources for the spy thing. I agree that it would meet resistance but if it was tried but a noncoatracky aarticle with scandalous language limited might get some minds changed I might try a draft and just propose it in a collapsable table. I doubt all will be onboard but it is worth a shot.
 * Since the other sources have not been dug up it means there is undueweight, IMO. That is what sucks about weight sometimes. Editors trying to put more info in on the spying would actually promote its chance of staying if they also worked on other aspects. But they haven't so at this time there is a weight issue. Of course, Preciseaccuracy and RomaC are saying to cut all of the China stuff out but then it would certainly be going against the later stages and closing comments at the AfD.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the solution with weight on this kind of well-covered issue is to cull reliably sourced content! The solution is to expand the rest of the article. Cutting out the material from China etc. would be bizarre, I definitely oppose that. Art student scams are common, and they help put the Israeli case in context (it explains why many people dismiss the suggestion of espionage). Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lot's of other sources that provide evidence of suspected "art student" spying already mentioned on the talk page which other users seem to ignore or distort the content of. There was also previously links to a twenty minute four part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron that discussed israel spying on the u.s. and mentioned the "art students." The Fox links had to be deleted from wikipedia due to possible copyright infringement. This news special is further referred to in salon.com and the newspaper Creative Loafing.

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243

http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ The second part of this article describes suspected 2001 Israeli "art student" spying in the United States, the first part dismisses separate 2004 art student spying in Canada

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies

http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in German, from Die Zeit, its easy to translate with Google or Yahoo

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 (F&W: copy of the Washington Post article)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060423065411/

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you arguing with? Thanks for letting me vent F&W.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Preciseaccuracy's point is either; I'm aware that there are a lot of articles about this, I've even read most of them before. However, the Democracy Now discussion is interesting, particularly the suggestion that news media deliberately shut the story down. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW think your intervention this evening has helped knock the article much more into shape. It's certainly better to balance things out by increasing coverage of scamming elsewhere rather than by adding stuff on what the Israelis may or may not have known about 911 and what they may or may not have told the Americans about it.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw on the talk page that this stuff had snuck back in. Perhaps we should link to September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, which also mentions the "Israeli art student" scam in context? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say no as it would be an invite both to up the level of conspiracy theory and for the more disruptive pro-Israelis to shove in a load of nonsense to "balance" things.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But several sources do directly connect the arts student case to the other examples of Israelis arrested around 9/11. I can see your point as I don't want that page to stray into the 9/11 link, but the connection is not a Wikipedia invention. Btw, I'm starting to think that the Chinese section isn't really connected to this "Israeli art student" scam, which is pretty characteristic. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The connection however is speculative. Perhaps a see also is a compromise. There is scope for an article on Mossad/Shin Bet clandestine activity in the US or allied countries. Of course that would then generate a slew of them-too articles in the same mode as the Apartheid in X business. And it will also be a magnet for speculation. For every proven abduction of Vanunu etc. there are God knows how many claims of other dirty business. A lot of it true but still unproven.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's speculative, but it's not we who are doing the speculation. Speculation by reliable sources is allowable, they can do all the synthesis and original research they like and within reason we follow what they say. If this was all just on Cryptome, Antiwar.com or Prison Planet I'd be singing a different tune.
 * Security services do get up to awful things. I came across the Lavon Affair when browsing around this area, and the FSB were implicated in the Russian apartment bombings by Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko, both of whom very strangely ended up dead. It's almost enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist. Have you heard about nano-thermite, fluoride in the water, and what really happened at Roswell... Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)



Joke!
Here's your portrate, it's all fences and widows!--82.18.200.10 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Mega-MFD
Having spent 40 minutes or so closing this, I'd like to thank you for the considerably larger amount of time you must have spent researching it. It was very helpful to have it so well organised, with the links to AfDs etc. provided. I am sorry for the subject, who seems to have devoted much of his life to these fantasies, but we may actually be doing him a service: if he now has to give them up here, he may actually achieve something in the real world. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, 40 minutes to close an MfD! Sorry! Hopefully he salvaged the contents for his own use. This is what happens when you spot a userpage in a category and then keep digging... Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

LAME
Oh, that is brilliant. Well played, sir. Sceptre (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No malice meant to either side. I've had an idea I supported end up immortalised in the Bad Idea Machine, so I ain't perfick. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Disruption by User KD Tries Again */ Resolved
I accept that the AN/I incident opened by Cirt is now resolved, but I am not sure that it is. After he initially closed the discussion about me which he had himself opened, he returned to the article and revised it to make it appear that the source I'd given said something consistent with what he had insisted the article should say: here. Obviously it rankles that I get dragged to AN/I for inserting an improvement to the article with a reference everyone now agrees is valid, while Cirt can deem the discussion closed and carry on tinkering behind the scenes. Anyway, sorry to sound off at you.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I just don't think this is something for AN/I. Cirt tried to use the board to his advantage and failed, but that doesn't mean scrutiny of the article stops there. There are other noticeboards and the talk page of the article at which this should be resolved, e.g. WP:NPOV/N. Have a look at WP:Dispute resolution. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, what is wrong with Cirt's edit there? The Facebook page does state "Culinary team: Charles Howlett, Chef." Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, he's the only chef mentioned at their Facebook page or at their website and the only name under "culinary team", but Cirt altered it to say that he is "a" chef and a "member" of the team, apparently because he has a problem admitting that a guy called Fernandez is no longer chef, although Fernandez is no longer mentioned at either of those sources. I really don't know what is driving this, but it seems to be a big deal. I really thought this morning it was just a matter of taking the old chef out and putting the new one in.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Dunno. Doesn't seem important enough to spend any time on. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 100% right, which is why being dragged to AN/I rankles.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Reply
In response to : Fences and windows, yes you are right. Understood. I am sorry about that. I will take your advice into consideration in the future. Thank you for your input. I respect and value your wise words. I hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you're reacting badly, as you're under siege at the moment. Having Jimbo wanting to delete the article you just wrote and having your motivations under scrutiny must be no fun at all. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thank you very much, for empathizing with my situation. It is most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Split
Since some oppose and some support the article split, does wikipedia have some sort of avenue to deal with a specific issue like that?

I know there is the dispute resolution like the articlesfordeletion page, but in that case a group of politically motivated users would show up again and vote. Is there any way that a completely random group of users who don't usually edit articles involving any sort of politics could be randomly appointed to decide on the merits of a split? Or do you know of someone who would be able to answer this question. Thanks. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Content noticeboard might be somewhere to get outside opinions on whether a separate article on the allegations of spying is warranted. If this were done, the Art student scam could have a short section that linked to the main article on the alleged spying incident. Another way to garner outside opinions is to start a request for comment by tagging the talk page section with . You could also ask for advice from WikiProject Espionage and/or WikiProject International relations.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But is there a way to get random objective politically uninvolved users to arbitrate?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just do what I suggested. What do you want, signed affidavits from people that they're not Israeli? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link discussing rfctag|pol? It sounds like a vote. Objective neutral users will need to be able to look through the sources in detail and make comments. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What say you?
I believe the user might benefit from few weeks topic ban on the article. I have never seen anybody perusing one single article like she does. Here's one the latest attempts.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. They are forum shopping, making repeated appeals to Jimbo, and they have a severe case of IDHT. They're also making less and less sense with each post. Yes, I think that an editing restriction to move them onto pastures new might be necessary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where should it be filed? Will you do it please? It should be done rather sooner than later. I am really starting to worry about her health. For example on July 28 she took only 4 hours of continues break.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Romac's analogy
Fences, thanks for your time in helping to edit this article "art student scam." The article has made some improvements.

Could you please respond to Romac's analogy about the article Split

"a hypothetical: Allegations of a spy ring using "falafel chef" as their cover. Wouldn't the "spy ring" angle be more notable than the "falafel chef" cover? What I mean is wouldn't such an (alleged) espionage operation (if notable enough) get its own Wiki article apart from the "falafel" article?" Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I chose what I respond to, and when. You need to stop badgering people including me, and you need to stop forum shopping. If you do not voluntarily take a break from editing and discussing this article, then I will request a formal editing restriction to temporarily ban you from the page. The amount of time and energy you are spending on this single article is completely unhealthy, and you are becoming increasingly disruptive to collaborative editing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Jason Leopold
Hi there, You added in the Salon section Kerry Lauerman said "Leopold represents the dark side of the web..." That's character assassination and an opinion, not a fact. Wiki's neutral point of view, as you are aware, says: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Here we mean facts about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources...By "opinion", on the other hand, we mean a statement which expresses a value judgement, or a statement construed as factual that does not reflect the consensus in other reliable sources. There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions."

Additionally, the editors here continually refuse to allow the addition of other material to balance this out. That this article contains an eight year old incident and a four year old one without taking into account other positive developments and the body of work that has been published since that time is seriously troubling. For example:

Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been discussed and cited by Countdown with Keith Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, The Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/search-results?cx=002266174228027960838%3Azfnctxmj5lc&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=jason+leopold&sa=Search&siteurl=washingtonindependent.com%2F#581 Harper's Magazine http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004094, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004387.

Additionally, one of Leopold's reports on the first high-value prisoner's, Abu Zubaydah http://www.truth-out.org/government-quietly-recants-bush-era-claims-about-%22high-value%22-detainee-zubdaydah58151, was described as a "bombshell" by the Ottawa Citizen and was submitted in federal court in Canada by attorneys representing another Guantanamo detainee they maintain is innocent. "The document, a report under the byline of Jason Leopold, quoted U.S. court documents, which say the American government now admits that Zubaydah did not have “any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” and was neither a “member” of al-Qaeda nor “formally” identified with the terrorist organization.

The document distributed in the Federal Court Wednesday quotes a redacted U.S. Justice Department filing on Zubaydah as saying the U.S. government “does not contend that (Zubaydah) was a ‘member’ of al-Qaeda in the sense of having sworn bavat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either (Zubaydah) or al-Qaeda may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaeda. Nor is the government detaining (Zubaydah) based on any allegation that (Zubaydah) views himself as part of al-Qaeda as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology or worldview.” http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Declassified+documents+present+bombshell+revelations+case+against+accused+terrorist+Harkat/2750542/story.htm

How is this resume padding when similar material exists on numerous other articles? It seems clear that those who are responsible for building this article are biased, based on their own previous editorial statements. Not even anything on education, media coverage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See, Kerry Lauerman's view on Leopold is of worth, because it is quoted in a secondary reliable source that discusses Leopold in detail, and because Lauerman was the story editor for the article that caused such a furore. Wikipedia can report "facts about facts, and facts about opinions" - we don't give our own opinions, but the opinions of others are fine to include. NPOV does not mean we sanitise articles to remove negative comments.
 * I will look at those links and look into getting more secondary coverage of Leopold's career and reporting. The bio is too sparse. Note that some of Leopold's own statements don't put him in a very good light: in his autobiography he admits to having been a drug addict, having committed theft from his employers, a record company, to feed that habit, and lying to his bosses, though that reviewer concludes that "The difference between Leopold and many of his more respectable colleagues is that he, albeit with sometimes lousy aim, never stopped trying." Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation very much. By the way, check out David Carr (NYT reporter) who wrote a memoir called "Night of the Gun" discussing his crack habit and how he purchased and smoked it in front of his twin daughters. Carr's own statements about himself are just as rough. The point being that there are a wide range of reviews out there. I am just struck by the fact that there is so much negativity on this article and the fact that people who are editing it in the past are biased and won't at least say so. Maybe they're pissed about Karl Rove. But Judith Miller's article isn't as bad and she wrote that Iraq had WMDs. anyway, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One last thing, my point on the characterization of the book news junkie can be summed up by this review: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13058927

there's positive and negative and I'm just trying to say that can be said of everyone who has a wiki article. It's just whether anyone wants to take the time to look for the positive stuff too and include it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please. I am asking you to rein in this user Bonewah. He/she continues to add edits to the article casting it in an even more negative light. For example, your subhed "Salon Article" bonewah changed to "Salon Article Retraction." It's not retracted if its still available on Lexis which is what Salon said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious?
I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia. This is not a question of a disagreement of "views," this is about discrediting a whole class of people from having the right to express different views. I cannot imagine a more incivil act, and more than that, it throws NPOV right out the window. Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I insist that you stop attacking me personally. Let's stick to policy and the quality of edits. Noloop is a POV-pushing troll. What else do you call it when someone insists on representing only one point of view, and when someone uses the talk page to soap-box his or her own point of view without any desire to enter into a dialogue with other editors, or to collaborate on building a consensus? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page with a final warning. Please strike the implication that I attacked you. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to have a double standard. An editor behaves atrociously, and is criticized for it. And then you say, to criticisze atrocious behavior will be punished. Where is the logic in that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I still do not understand what you are saying, specifically here: "What I am concerned with right now is the narrow issue of the use of personal attacks by William C and yourself. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not contingent on us agreeing with an editor's opinions or actions, even if we believe that they are being disruptive." Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack, and labeling someone's edit "disruptive" not a personal attack? You do not think calling someone "disruptive" is calling attention to some kind of unacceptable behavior? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not have proof that he is a bigot, you have your own opinion of him. Please stop confusing the two. "Disruptive" is a possibly accurate description of the effect of someone's editing, not their motivations. I know you're strong-minded, but these accusations of bigotry are poisoning the well. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is a clear and reasonable distinction. All i have to add is this: i think there is a serious problem at WP, and one that has not been addressed. I mean our inability to recognize and condemn "impersonal attacks." I use this phrasing to contrast to our own choice of phrasign in "personal attacks." By "impersonal attacks" I mean attacks against an entire class of people - which is necessarily an attack on individuals, just indirectly (so one could contrast "direct attacks" to "indirect attacks" rather than "personal attacks" and "impersonal attacks" if you wish). This is something similar to the idea of "hate speech" or "hate crimes," an idea established in the US in the 1964 Federal Civil rights legislation. I see these twy kinds of injunctions (or violations) as two forms of the same basic problem, so if we think personal attacks are wrong we should also say that impersonal attacks are wrong (and any criticism of a policy against one kind of attack necessarily calls into question any policy against the other kind of attack). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I wonder, if this ever is to stop, and why today on August 2 bring up AN/I post that was closed on July 16. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's do this. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)  Not going to follow up myself. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I brought it up today because I took a ten day break from editing only to find that my ani complaint regarding Huey45 had been closed without being addressed by an admin.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rschen7754 is the user who closed the notice board without addressing that Huey45 deliberately lied about the content of sources.

Huey45 said... “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of deliberately lying is a dangerous approach. Drop the stick on this, it will get you nowhere. Concentrate on succinctly and unemotionally stating your case. You got no outside opinions when you posted at WP:NPOVN because of how you posted your request for outside views. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited the npov request. Is it better now? I felt that I needed to add explanation to it as gangs of users seem to continually "filibuster" in numerous ways. ect...
 * 1) . Continually Referring to allegations documented by reliable sources as myths and wingnut conspiracies.
 * 2) .Saying that the israelis were only typical israelis when they had military training that is far behond compulsory.
 * 3) . Saying that the allegations were completely dismissed when sources point to the allegations as inconclusive.
 * 4) . Saying that the Forward dismissed the spy ring when it was dismissing an entirely separate incident in Canada in 2004 while treating spying on the United States as inconclusive.
 * 5) . Ironduke and others saying spying has been thouroughly debunked when only a one lone 12 sentence article claims to debunk it while later articles treat the allegations as inconclusive.
 * 6) . Saying art students are not Israeli.
 * 7) . Continuously attacking the reliability of the salon.com source while ignoring other reliables sources.
 * 8) .Forming polls in which friends of other users show up to leave three word or one or two sentence wp:idontlikeit comments as demonstrated on the talk page and more glaringly on the articlesfordeletion page.
 * 9) .Users insulting me and linking to conspiracy websites on the talk page.
 * 10) .Users mistating information and then faking confusion.

It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Go and edit some other articles to get a better feeling about how Wikipedia works. Nothing to do with Israel or spying, something random. The world will not end if you leave that article alone temporarily. Stop accusing anyone of lying. Concentrate on their edits and arguments, not why they are making them or suspicions that they are editing in bad faith - assume good faith. Also, for heaven's sake use a spell checker and learn WP:MARKUP! Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I concentrate and continue to concetrate on correcting their misrepresenting catch-phrases that they continue to repeat. Many of my responses include direct quotes from the sources. The only quotes they seem to have used are the urban myth quote along with the title of the Forward article. They then accuse me of filibustering.

I would be relieved to quit editing this article as it is fruitless to debate those only just looking to harm the article, if only every user involved in past editing of this article could leave it alone and objective third parties could take over and create a new article focusing on the spying allegations and not just the art student cover. I think I am going to take at least temporary break soon. Although, when I come back this article will probably once again be about almost unnotable tourist traps in China or perhaps paint brushes in france.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion about temples
Hi Fences&Windows. Thanks for contributing to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm a bit frustrated that User:IZAK's posts are far from concise and largely not on-topic. I think the thread is increasingly unlikely to get admin attention and be resolved because reading through the disucssion is much harder work than it needs to be.

Given that some users have posted useful things (although these useful things are now pretty effectively buried in the discussion), do you think it would be a terrible breach of ettiquette for me to collapse the discussion and attempt to start again? --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment...
An edit needs to be done to a protected page regarding Administrators'_noticeboard - details in thread. Exxolon (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, you did all the work. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS
I understand you feel wronged by Gavin and with good reason. But I would have thought that even you would have thought that my proposal to close the AN/I discussion as resolved - no additional action to be taken - would be a satisfactory outcome. Your most recent comment (following mine) suggests that you wish to keep this AN/I discussion open. If this is not so, I have to wonder why you posted it, I mean, what purpose it serves? If this is so, I suggest you be clearer about what you would consider a satisfactory resolution of this issue i.e. what more has to happen before you are willing to close this AN/I discussion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's no reason to keep the AN/I open as no immediate admin action is required. My comment was really "right of reply": Gavin Collins was suggesting that I was involved in abuse of my position, and I didn't want to let that slide. Masem is preparing an RfC/U on Gavin Collins; that will be the correct place to continue this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:List of Colors
Probably right as well have this template deleted even though I want it to stay. I don't know if I can stand having a template around that some editors can't stand. They alreay are removing it on all the articles. What do you think? Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the template during a deletion discussion is disruptive behaviour. Do you have diffs? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't have diffs and I am not sure of what you were talking about before I looked it up in Wikipedia! (The irony!) How do you get that? Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was then undone when I reverted him on the article Color by the other one who wanted it to be deleted. I might need some help here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, jargontastic. Go to the History, and select the radio buttons either side of the edit, and click "Compare selected revisions". The URL given is the "diff". I have asked them not to remove templates while they are being debated at TfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the help. I might just leave it for now because the result either seems like it's going to be a no consensus or delete. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)