User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 14

h2g2
From previous discussions I thought it was determined that h2g2 counted as essentially a wiki-like site, and one without the required stability etc. to meet WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You have  new messages ( last change ). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into 	"ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ► 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Tetete is a language? Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

User:Angr

 * This user seems to have a history of bullying on Wikipedia. See the talkpage archives at linguistics, for example. See the censored article post structural linguistics. Please help with the issue of that censored/deleted article, if possible. It was a valid one. There are many others there along with Angr, in my view, including some users like User:Dbachmann who indulge in POV bullying and rudeness and abuse of their administrator privileges. I am telling you this from my experience of having read the archives extensively. I read your message on Angr's user page. Fellowscientist (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I tell you this because of my concern about the health of Wikipedia and its development. Fellowscientist (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find this an interesting read. Look into the matter if you care - here's a good responsibility given to you :) Fellowscientist (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I noticed a few weeks ago now you said you'd carry on with the GA review of Martha MacKenzie but as of yet nothing has happened. We have waited a long time now and wanted to get the GA review wrapped up ASAP. Normally it takes less than a day, were so willing to make the changes and going ahead with the tasks. Thankyou. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Book citation tool
Hi F&W, Google Books citation tool: http://reftag.appspot.com/?book_url=&dateformat=dmy Cheers, -- JN 466  21:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review of The Story of Marie and Julien
I have done a review of the article you nominated for GA-status: Talk:The Story of Marie and Julien/GA1. I have one concern regarding the article so I placed the on hold to allow time for comment. --maclean (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Article back
Hi! I have noticed an article you nominated for deletion here which was deleted has returned under the name of United People's Party (United Kingdom), seemingly no more notable than it was before. I have PRODed it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. He doesn't give up, does he? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cork.27s 96FM - air mileage
Cork's 96FM

Hi, as you have made a revert there, if you have time and inclination would you comment on the content at the thread at the BLPN - If you support the content, do you think it could do with a weeks semi protection to keep the wanker comments out. The main issues seem to be, he was not working for the radio station, should the content reflect on the radio station article and he himself appears to not be notable enough for his own BLP, personally I am on the fence and would appreciate your experienced opinion as regards to policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I've semi-protected it. I'm not sure there's a place for this incident in the article, but I'm on the fence. Prendeville might or might not be notable, he has received some press but is clearly only known in Cork. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciate the comments and the protection edits, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beart as Marie in Marie et Julien.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Beart as Marie in Marie et Julien.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! for Tom Rapoport
by the way: in mentioning the political reasons of Rapoports migration from the reunited Germany to the US, your short article about him is better than the German version (despite the fact that the main author of the German text is a biologist with East German background). Plehn (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, up to now I had no reputable source which mentioned those political reasons. The article in New Scientist which is given as reference in the English article is sign-in only. And using information from a preview which stops in the middle of a sentence is, in my humble opinion, suboptimal. I have heard from different people that there was another, equally important, personal reason for Tom Rapoport to go to the US. This is, of course, oral communication only and hence not suitable for Wikipedia, but nonetheless I consider these people credible. And there were other prominent scientists from the GDR (Charles Coutelle, Bernd Nilius to name two examples) who went abroad as well. On the other hand, Tom Rapoport's close friend Reinhart Heinrich remained in Germany after 1990 as professor of biophysics at the Humboldt University. Last but not least, probably any ambitious scientist would have switched from the uncertain prospects of the MDC in the early to mid-1990s to Harvard University if the call came, like it it for Tom Rapoport. Any possible political reasons would have paled in comparison when making this decision.
 * Also, a group leader position at the MDC does not depend on being granted professorship as the MDC is not a teaching institution, so the article in New Scientist is at least inaccurate on this point and should not be taken at face value. At least not without more specific details about who provided the information to the New Scientist author about Tom Rapoport's party membership being the reason for denying him a permanant position at the MDC. There might or might not be more information on this in the full article but I don't have access as I have no subscription and therefore no login for New Scientist.
 * Anyway, thanks also from me for creating the English article. As for the request to extend it, I'm sorry to say that I won't do that, at least not in the foreseeable future. For a number of reasons, I've dropped the English Wikipedia altogether from the focus of my Wikipedia activities. --Uwe (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, well, how else does one interpret "But some members of the centre's board of trustees, almost all of whom also came from West Germany, insisted that because he had been a member of the Communist Party he should not be granted a professorship." Add to that the note from the PNAS profile that "Turned down twice for professorships for what he calls political reasons, Rapoport says, “I was annoyed and decided I would look elsewhere”", I think it's a fairly solid statement. Of course, there may have been other personal reasons, and a move to Harvard is hardly a terrible thing, but "verifiability, not truth" is our motto... Shame you're not editing English Wikipedia anymore, but our loss is German Wikipedia's gain. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem, so to say, is that the statement from the PNAS article is based on Tom Rapoport's own assessment. Which I don't doubt, just to be clear. I own a DVD copy of an interesting and award-winning 60 minutes German documentary about the Rapoport family which gives an interesting insight into their political beliefs, also into differences between Tom Rapoport and his brother Michael. For example, Tom dropped Austrian citizenship at the age of 18 in favour of East-German citizenship; furthermore he studied in the GDR where he also built the beginning of his career. Michael, on the other hand, retained his Austrian citizenship, went on to study in Paris, Princeton and Harvard and became professor in West Germany at the beginning of the 1980s (before the German reunification).


 * But the fact remains that the statement in the PNAS article is his personal opinion. For the respective statement in the article in New Scientist, we don't know who said it without reading the complete article, and perhaps not even after reading the full text. The current wording in the English article "Rapoport's membership of the Communist Party in East Germany led some members of the board of trustees of the MDC to oppose him being given a professorship..." makes it look like it's a given fact. It would be more precise to clearly write who said it (and if possible, in which context). And there comes the problem that we don't have this information for the New Scientist article, at least not from the limited preview. --Uwe (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We should add something about his work and friendship with Reinhart Heinrich, he reminisces about it here:. We definitely need to say he was one of the founders of metabolic control theory! Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you found some well-balanced formulations regarding my points above. Well done! In the 2nd paragraph which mentions his membership in various academies of science, you could also add that he was a member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR - the national academy of sciences of the German Democratic Republic - from 1988 until its dissolution in 1992 (using reference #1). I think the somewhat strange fact that he made it into the academy of communist East Germany and later into both US academies is a testament to his scientific talent. --Uwe (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Puh, I do not want to start a lengthy discussion here - from the context it is clear, that this statement in the New Scientist is made by the author of the article. Interesting, that the New Scientist wrote an article about this trouble even two years after, there must be for sure more cases like Rapoport. It should be possible to access the hole article. I will contact Uwe. Plehn (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

St Anne, Alderney
Thanks for the above information. I will ensure that I don't use these references in my future articles. By the way, is there any specific wikipedia site where I can get information of all such references which are unreliable.-- N.V.V. Char     Talk. 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Daesun Jinrihoe
While your article is well researched, it's difficult to follow. Don't take it personally, maybe you should tweak it a bit.

Cheers. Cashie (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting my user page
Hey there, I understand you deleted my user page because it had attack things on it, i'm sorry about that, could you please restore my page and tell me what to remove? I had a lot of useful things i needed, could you please restore it?--Balmz (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't restore it all as there were insults directed at living people that should not be accessible in the history. WP:BLP applies to userpages as well as articles. Please also read WP:NOTWEBHOST. I've restored the links from the latest version, and I'm not willing to restore more. If you want more of the content, another admin at WP:REFUND may be willing to help. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Sayward
Hello, I want to commend you for some outstanding work on Teresa Sayward. Even more importantly, you demonstrated that even the most "obscure" state legislator is notable, especially to people who live in that legislator's district. Do you think that WP:POLITICIAN should have a clause added stating that newly elected (or appointed) officials are presumed to be notable even before being sworn in? Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, it is the height of pedantry (letter, not spirit) to argue that someone just elected but not sworn in doesn't count as a member of that legislature, and that argument just fell flat on its face at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I'm not sure we need to clutter WP:POLITICIAN with this, unless this wrongheaded argument gets raised again. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, is it "Purge the Jews" week? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be light up a lot of people's talk pages week. &#9786; You might be interested in User talk:DGG. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Akh, I don't have the energy to get further involved in a wikidramafest. I'll sit this one out. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually a fairly reasonable meta-discussion at the moment. But no matter.
 * Can I instead interest you in something that isn't a biography and isn't about a living person? Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What a quirky tale. Congratulations on salvaging the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What a quirky tale. Congratulations on salvaging the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Books
By the way, if you didn't see it mentioned elsewhere: This exists. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Democratic left logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Democratic left logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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. Skier Dude ( talk  06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sockpuppeting career
I thought you were rolled up into this one, but it seems I misremembered. A miracle, seeing as it was a quite inclusive club. pablo 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How could Frei Hans have missed me out? I feel slighted. What a loss to Wikipedia he was. Btw, Barts1a surely isn't a genuine newbie. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Barts1a account was created in 2006, as you can see. So, no.  That account has been accruing a list of troubling behaviour, from the self-nomination for administratorship, the self-nomination for the Arbitration Committee, and (when an election volunteer came along to say that xe wasn't eligible) immediate self-promotion to be an ArbCom election volunteer, to things like  and .  Uncle G (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: Editor review/Barts1a pablo 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

reply
You wrote:

I am sorry to hear you describe me as a "problem editor" -- since I regard myself as a contributor fully committed to complying with all of the project's policies, guidelines and established conventions.

You ask me if you have to open an WP:RFC on my conduct.


 * 1) I know that some contributors feel sure that the OARDEC memos are "primary sources".
 * 2) I know that some contributors feel sure that the OARDEC memos are "court records".

I disagree with them. I have an alternate suggestion. I have never initiated an WP:RFC. I know there are several kinds. I believe there is a kind of request for comment intended to resolve the editorial issues. May I ask you whether the initiation of one of those other kinds of WP:RFC isn't in order -- the kind intended to reach a conclusion over a tricky editorial question?

My frustration is that, with almost no exceptions, those who do not recognize the OARDEC memos as valid WP:RS treat their opinions as so obvious they do not require explanation.

So, can I request some advice on how to draft an RFC designed to resolve, once and for all, whether the OARDEC memos can be relied on as WP:RS?

The memos aren't "court records", since the OARDEC administrative boards weren't courts. They were non-judicial inquiries, which, confusingly, bore some of outward trappings of a court. Among the most important differences between a court and an OARDEC board was that a court is an adversarial process, where two sides do their best to make their case. Non-judicial inquiries, on the other hand, are not adversarial processes. The officials who sit on them are all supposed to be on the same side. Their final conclusions are regarded as fair and unbiased.

Aren't other non-judicial inquiries, like the 911 Commission report, the Warren Commission, the Taguba Report all regarded as WP:RS?

Many of the captives were confused by the outward similarities between the OARDEC boards, and a court, and asked why there weren't being allowed a lawyer to represent them. Every captive who voiced this concern was given essentially the same answer. "This is not a court, this is an administrative proceeding. We are not here to determine whether you committed a crime, only to refute or confirm earlier determinations that you should be considered an 'enemy combatant'."

Our policies lay out criteria for what we recognize as a secondary source, which parallel the criteria scholars use. Raw transcripts, court transcripts, board transcript, interview transcripts not intended for broadcast, are primary sources, because they haven't been analyzed, fact checked and interpreted. I agree that the transcripts from the OARDEC board hearing are primary sources, which should only be used carefully, and do not establish notability.

Each memo, on the other hand, was the product of a team of authors who were supposed to review all the available information. They called for all the information available from half a dozen or more other US government agencies, and sometimes from foreign government agencies. While these memos were based, in part, on reports from the agencies that interrogated the captives, the teams were from a different agency than the officials who had performed the interrogations. The reports the OARDEC author team relied on sometimes conflicted, sometimes were redundant, sometimes contained information that had been superceded or disproved. It was their job to understand, analyze and synthesize all their source documents. It was their job to resolve those conflicts, collapse the redundant reports into a single allegation, and discard the superceded, non-credible, or irrelevant allegations.

If we looked at summary documents drafted by scholars, by scientists or historians, who had analyzed and synthesized multiple third party reports, I suggest there would be no question that we would consider those summary documents to be secondary sources. And I honestly see no reason that the OARDEC summary memos should not also be considered secondary sources which are suitable WP:RS.

I am going to thank you, in advance, for extending to me the assumption of good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith. Where have I ever said you're aiming to disrupt Wikipedia? You persist in making BLPs based on nothing but US government documents and don't see a problem in doing this, so we have a problem. You've just got caught up above in Wikilawyering over whether these were court proceedings or not, which is a great illustration of the problem in your approach - we should follow the spirit of the rules and to all intents and purposes these are no different to court reports. Stop making BLPs like this, or you'll go the way of editors like User:Gavin.collins who also failed to get a grip on policy and also wikilawyered to no avail. If everyone else disagrees with you, perhaps you're the one in the wrong? Have you never thought to consult the WP:RS/N on whether the OARDEC memos are considered to be reliable, independent, secondary sources? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

heated debate
There's a heated debate (which I never should have taken part in) going on in Talk:Glenn Beck. It would be nice to have an administrator opinion. Thank you;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am normally good with resolving edit conflicts, but this one acts like he wants to talk back over and over. Thank goodness you are handling it well. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Manganology
Hiya,

Just wanted to say thanks, for closing that. You are right, it was a bit silly, and yes, it's never valid to make fun of beliefs. Hopefully you'll note that my own attempt at a bit of fun was unrelated to the Scientology side of things; just wanted to ensure that, really. Gotta relax sometimes, but yes, it might've moved over the line if not closed. And thanks for closing it in such a self-deferential way. Nice job.  Chzz  ► 15:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd nip it in the bud before it got out of hand. There wasn't any need for heavy-handedness, and I'm glad I didn't put any noses out of joint. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
. Can't believe I missed that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy slip, I didn't notice it until right at the end of editing it! He did attend Stanford, possibly where the idea of him being American came from. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines
I agree with you that it was half-baked. It appeared to be an attempt to chop off the head hoping the body would fall with it.

You asked for clarification, and several people have come forward to shed light on the whole issue. The nomination appears to have been an attempt to delete the portal page, citing the deficiencies of the pages it listed (outlines). Deleting the list of outlines wouldn't determine the fate of the outlines, since they (all 500+ of them) would have to be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD and tagged with an AfD notice template. Detractors of outlines have not bothered to nominate the set for deletion, probably because nearly every outline that has been discussed at AfD has been kept with overwhelming support. More than likely, if a mass AfD was posted, it would be closed per WP:SNOW and a deletion review of whatever page deletion that led up to it would ensue.

The purpose of the outline system is to summarize or overview human knowledge as a whole, in the format of an outline to accommodate browsing. Detractors of outlines generally have an all or nothing attitude, citing that the system is incomplete (as if a system has to be completed off-line before it can be posted on Wikipedia). This contradicts the main purpose of a wiki: collaboration upon a work-in-progress.

Summaries are by definition incomplete. The scope of the outline system is all-encompassing, even at the topmost "level". So, the several outlines of the top level comprise a "complete" summary of human knowledge. Each successive level of outlines adds more detail. The purpose is achieved at each level - provide a degree of access to articles on Wikipedia. As the outlines expand, the access provided will continue to improve.

Another main argument is redundancy, but that contradicts WP:CLN. The redundancy argument also ignores the potential of outlines, particularly the addition of outliner functionality in the future. The goal is to improve the outline system into a state-of-the-art navigation system by adding new interface elements, but if you delete outlines, there will be nothing to base and test the outliner features on. An outliner is an editor/viewer designed for using and working on outlines.

The posers of the redundancy argument sometimes claim that the labor spent on developing outlines would be better spent elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The main problem with this guess is that 60% to 80% of the work on outlines has been done by one or two people, who have put years into the project. If the outline project is closed down, Wikipedia will probably lose those editors, and their labor wouldn't be spent on Wikipedia at all.

The war against outlines appears to be an extension of the categories vs. lists conflict that has been going on since the introduction of the category system. Before any lists were renamed to "outline", the topic lists had the same problem of being under attack periodically. Some editors prefer to build lists, others prefer to build categories. As far as I can tell, they don't overlap much - an editor usually chooses one or the other. This has presented the opportunity for the two systems to leap-frog each other, with lists borrowing from categories, and the other way around. These provide two complementary methods of gathering links on a subject, the category method being decentralized (across the bottom of many articles) and the list method being centralized (on a single list page). The list method lends itself to more readily to gathering topics using searches. The batches of topics found are then easily added to a list page. The list page can then be used as the basis upon which to add the topics to a specific category.

The Transhumanist 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

David McKnight
You added a hoax tag to this article. The article already has a references tag. Wouldn't it be useful to explain on the Talk page what parts of the article you think might be hoaxes? The references tag is obvious on the surface, but the hoax tag is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just did. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the full story. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Artel Jarod Walker
You'll note that I have not opined a "keep" at the AFD discussion, and am only taking issue with the use of pseudonyms by this actor, as his one award nomination does not meet WP:ANYBIO and his lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG. The article is WP:TOOSOON

I do wish you to know that I am well aware that The New York Times often includes pocket summaries from AMG in their film listings... but such summaries do not meet the GNG's requirement for "significant", and that is not my argument anyway. My issue is that while verification of any asserted fact is required by policy, that policy does not also require that such verification be limited to only articles or stories in those WP:RS publications. As with any decent publication, the NYT gets their information from many places... but it is through an established and continued reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that any source may be deemed reliable. Yes, the NYT film listings may often include pocket summaries attributed to AMG... but what information a reliable source chooses to offer is not the issue. The issue is their editorial processes and their reputaion for fact checking and accuracy in what they publish.

What is also found at the bottom of all NYT film listings, and well worth noting, is the name InBaseline. InBaseline was specifically set up by The New York Times Company as an entire division dedicated solely to fact-checking and accuracy of the film information they share. So... if information published in the NYT is provided by their own dedicated subsidiary InBaseLine (not the AMG pocket sumary), the information can be seen and accepted as reliable... and far more reliable and accurate than IMDB, as (unlike IMDB) NYT freely shares the editorial standards and practices used in their vetting the information they publish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! Good to know that about this data, it is much more reliable than IMDB. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help... and have a terrific holiday season!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the hoaxer
By the time I'd woken up it was sorted, but thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your block
Did you mean to block that IP (217.33.199.76) indefinitely? --Bsadowski1 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Never wrestle with a pig
Wow, where is this hostility coming from? I mean that as a sincere question. I was responding to (and largely disagreeing with) Angr's suggestion that the page is not a Dicdef, not making any comment related to you or to particular comments of yours. If something I said could be heard as patronizing you personally, I'll try not to repeat it in the future.

I'm almost afraid to hit "Save page" now for fear that you will take this comment as further patronizing. Cnilep (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Deletion is not for clean-up" implies that I was misusing AfD to force a "clean up", whereas I had no such intention. "Deletion is not for clean up" is nice catchphrase, but it is overused, and often patronising. If you don't want to be criticised for making such comments, perhaps you shouldn't be making them. I do become frustrated at keep !voters who merely glance at an article and see a few citations so assume it is notable. I don't like lazy !votes, both when they arguing for deletion and when they are arguing for retention. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)



Jake Duncan
I've closed the ban proposal with consensus to ban; could you please annotate his block log to record it? --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 02:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've updated the block log. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to use this diff? You linked to a comment you provided at an AfD. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh balls. At least one of us is paying attention. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1973 Tupolev Tu-144 Paris Air Show crash
Hi, I've expanded the article a bit, added and infobox and template, and linked the article from the List of aircraft by tail number. Could you provide a ref for 15 houses being destroyed please. Feel free to expand the article further with info form the Aviation Safety Network webpage if you feel that info there is relevant. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Would "1973 Paris Air Show crash" be a better title? Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Article moved with redirect from old title. I too was surprised that there was not an article before you created it. Mjroots (talk)

WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but sociology is not a focus of my editing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the WikiNews item to Troll (Internet)
That was a really interesting and relevant link. Also, I had never before seen the template that you used. betsythedevine (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ylaappa
Hi, why have you declined sppedy delete Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to tell you. Because that criterion was invalid, you should well know. The "patent nonsense" criterion is very narrow and specifically "This excludes poor writing". Misusing speedy deletion criteria is disruptive, so please don't. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be joking, haha. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no joke. You seem to have clicked the wrong button, right? It was a copy vio of http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/bS9pL3QvTWl0b2xvZ8OtYV9kZV9BbcOpcmljYV9kZWxfU3VyXzhhNjI=, as you noted on the talk page, so it's deleted per that criterion. Patent nonsense definitely did not apply. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I may write an article on Yllapa/Illapa, who is mentioned in Inca mythology and does appear to have been their lightning/thunder god; Yllapa was their word for lightning and later artillery fire. Perhaps you should look harder before dismissing new articles as "nonsense". Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, go on, knock yourself out.I am sure that you would at least make something of minor worth rather that some senseless uncited twaddle. My issue with you is the speed at which you add what felt as an attack against me. I was according to you, being disruptive ,. yaddas yada yada . Why did you feel it was needed to warn me about disruption? Did you investigate at all? Did you look at the talkpage ? did you see the thread at the ANI about copy violations again from the creator of the article. Did you think I was being disruptive, or did you have some pre formed opinion about me that led you to assume and act as if I was disruptive or likely to be wrong? Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob, next time just remove the blatant copyvios like I did. Don't wait for "the system" to do it. Come on, man! Doc   talk  08:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of working it out and had commented about the copy vio on the talkpage already, the issue is Fences and window's such quick to judge and warn me for disruption when that clearly was so far away from the truth. To the point that his opinions about me personally led him to do such little investigation into the issue that he removed a speedy template from a uncited copy violation that was commented on the talkpage and the creator had a thread at ANI about his violations, he is now indefed and yet Fences jumped up to warn me as a disruptive editing for which there was imo no support for at all, as we all know WP:Disruptive has a specific meaning here. A comment that he is yet to retract or apologize for. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Fences and windows, please explain to me why you felt the need to mention disruptive editing in regards to my contributions in this prod, AFD and ultimate speedy deletion, what was my disruptive attitude or disruptive editing pattern that you felt you just had to refer me and remind me about disruptive editing? Do you still think my editing was disruptive or warranted telling me what I was doing in your opinion was disruptive? Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you still trying to argue you did nothing wrong? You need to remember that I'm not a mindreader - you tagged the article as patent nonsense, and it was no such thing. So my removal of your speedy deletion tag - taking the tag at face value - was quite correct. As soon as I realised it was a copyvio, I speedily deleted it. Here's what you did wrong: 1. You mis-tagged the article as being patent nonsense, when it was not (you've still not conceded this). Misusing speedy deletion tags disrupts our aim of having a comprehensive encyclopedia, so mis-tagging is indeed "disruptive". I will make no apologies for using plain English and calling a spade a spade, and I did not label you as a "disruptive editor" or link to policy. 2. Rather than discussing the article with me and the reasons why it should be deleted, you instead opened the AfD immediately. Less haste, please. 3. You explicitly stated in the AfD that your reason for deletion for copyvio, but this is a speedy deletion criterion, and not a reason to take an article to AfD. 4. Even when I had explained why your actions were faulty, you still come here and bluster. Whether the creator of that article was indeffed or not does not excuse your own errors in this process. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a mis tag, that doesn't need you to throw your imagined weight around and claim that a single mis tag is disruptive, it isn't. You didn't even check on the talkpage or anything, where you would have found the link to the copy vio, a quality action from you would have been to investigate a little and re tag it and delete it, but you chose to demean me instead, no your not a mind reader and I am not disruptive either, you let your keep keep keep mentality get the better of you sometimes, either that or your preconceived idea that I am disruptive, please take a little more time to consider that my actions are in good faith and likely have a good reason behind them before you reject them. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "keep keep mentality" (talk about "preconceived ideas"!), I merely object to people being so blasé about deleting articles. Abuse of speedy deletion is widespread and is rarely challenged. I rejected the tag because it was incorrect - and you're refusing to engage with that argument. All you're trying to do is attack me instead, a rather poor tactic. Unless you're willing to admit that your argument that the content was "patent nonsense" was wrong, we have nothing further to discuss. Thank heaven you're not on ArbCom. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing blase about speedy deleting some drive by uncited rubbish. uncited rubbish stubs should actually be deleted on sight.- I said I mistagged it, it was patent rubbish or close enough to be of any difference, I unlike you actually investigated the creator and the content and added a comment to the talkpage, you did non of that and yet felt the need to tell me how disruptive I was .I see your little comment about how glad you are that my offer to help the project was not strongly supported and that just about clears the actual issue up. As I said, whatever your personal opinions about me, please take a little time to investigate before you reject my contributions as disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read Patent nonsense, it is very tightly defined. You cannot just pretend that policy says something it doesn't, so your "close enough to be of any difference" is certainly wrong. Do you regularly argue that this speedy deletion criterion applies to such articles as that one? Have you been misinterpreting other criteria? Do I have to go through your deleted contributions to check? You seem to be misguided as to what the speedy deletion criteria actually are. As for your "offer to help the project", luckily plenty of others also saw that you are unsuitable for such a role. Perhaps you should reflect on why that is. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Emily Reuben
She is one of the main presenters on British TV's Channel 4 News (and we only have five terrestial channels) so I'd say she was notable in the UK at least. Doubtless nobody else in the world has heard of her but then few people in the UK know who Jay Leno, say, is. If the page offends you I am sorry and I probably won't dispute it's deletion if you can find other editors who agree with you. Good editing in 2011 to you!  Smokey TheCat  08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Birati
Thanks for pointing that out. However, I didn't add that link; I merely moved it from another part of the article. The link was added by this edit. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)