User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 15

re Ray.Lowry
Thanks for removing the strange things from my user page. Can't imagine who did that, but it wasn't me.... Thanks for the clean-up. Can't imagine who did it, but I'm a teacher and much of the Nobles County material I put online gets used by them in a class. I don't know what "semi-protected" means. Would I still be able to edit as usual? Thanks

That sounds like a good idea. Probably a mischevious student with too much time on his hands. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.111.95 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Didn't sign in. The previous edit was me.

Ray Lowry

re Harbinger Community
AfD is not rigamarole, its how we delete articles, unless they are speedy-deletable, which this isn't. Maybe it isn't notable, but you never know - I've been surprised before at AfD, and maybe you will be too. I've sent it to AfD. I don't think that you should be blanking or deleting articles just on your own say-so. Herostratus (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Give the lecture a rest. Redirection does not require an AfD, and this is blatant. I didn't know you were into pointless bureaucracy. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Adinkras
Correction: Adinkras is an established area of study in SUSY physics (see publication list). The principal author (Gates at UMD) is heavily on the lecture circuit (both academic and "lay" -- see last and upcoming lectures at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, among others). From these sources one can glean that the term Adinkras was chosen for two reasons: 1) the structures are graphs which resemble the adinkras weavings and 2) Adinkras cloth have meanings beyond simply decoration and seek to describe fundamental truths. Thanks for being wiki-vigilant, but I think this particular deletion (12/19/2010) was in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnmirose (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you sign ( ~ ) your posts? Wikipedia articles are not about unrelated topics that share a name - one topic, one article. If the physics topic has any level of outside recognition, then it should be included at a suitable article on physics, not in that article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An/I
As per your comment that I shouldn't be treating Wikipedia as a battleground: 1) I Didn't know Wikipedia guideline and 2) I don't treat Wikipedia as a battleground either. I'm still not sure how the An/I was without merit not when the other guy calls my assertion as having little value and people who level the charge of anti-semitism at Counterpunch as "assholes" but for what its worth, I couldn't let Bali Ultimate report me to An/I without a response. If you're really interested in where the debate starts, you can take a visit as to [where it all began http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#.22Criticism.22] although by having a look through your Wikipedia page, I already have a feeling as to whose side you'll take. Fellytone (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your report was totally stale, and your "defence" included re-airing attacks on a living person. My view on CounterPunch has nothing to do with my warning to you and closure of that report; you don't know my view on CounterPunch, and it may not be what you think it is. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by the visceral reaction to my report, I'd say the content was quite vivacious. Your right I don't know your view on CounterPunch but that's because I don't really care what your view about CounterPunch is: I just needed you to see the hilarity of user Bali Ultimate's twisted logic in defending the censorship of legitimate criticism of CounterPunch. Although I must confess, I didn't expect you to put a whole section of criticisms and praise for that left-wing rag of a magazine.
 * Good to know there's still some semblence of moderation and sanity on the left. And it's good to know I'll be contacting you the next time Bali Ultimate tries to remove criticism of the CounterPunch Wikipedia page. Till then, (as you Brits say) cheerio. Fellytone (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice?
You may recall that a few months back there was a dispute involving User:AuthorityTam dredging up my old edits at an AfD. You suggested that the user strike out their comments (which they didn't do) and cease their irrelevant speculation. He is now repeating similar behaviour at Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_Association_of_Romania and things are becoming heated, adding irrelevant contention to what is already a disputed point. I would also welcome any comments at the broader RFC in that section and the prior Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_Association_of_Romania section. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I'm apparently an "apologist for an intolerant regime".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. As this is not an isolated incident (nor restricted to the two occasions in which you have intervened), I would still appreciate some advice on how to proceed if/when it happens again. I'm not claiming infallibility, but if the editor is going to attempt to impugn my character and motives at article Talk pages and other discussion pages by taking old edits out of context and framing irrelevant ad hominem attacks, it seems unfair to simply leave their remarks undefended. Also, if I were to remove their comments, I would be further attacked for that, and it has been demonstrated in the past that the editor will not even strike out their inappropriate comments, even when requested.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

'kay; fair enough.
It's just you were talking about plagiarism and it was almost word-for-word, so...

I mean, if I'm wrong I'm wrong; I just tag 'em. Does that mean the rest of his stuff is considered okay, or was it not PD?  Half  Shadow  23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * CDC is public domain, WHO is copyrighted. 'tis not easy, I'm familiar with this through my work. So the two I've speedily deleted were copyright violations. Whether we want verbatim copyright-free text is another matter, but not one dealt with via speedy deletion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'l leave it to you then; sounds too tricky to be sure. Half  Shadow  23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper defence
I was absolutely flabbergasted that you could be so unfair here and I took some time off instead of venting then. Maybe you're too busy sometimes and get irritable with those of us who you feel keep complaing? There was nothing “idiosyncratic” about that edit at all and I have never been shown that I have ever intentionally done anything “idiosyncratic” on en.WP.

All I did was change a link so that it went directly to the article name. I had nothing to do with naming that article. Since I thought that was always (?) the right thing to do, I found Kuiper's quick stalk and reversal "unnecessary POV" and "highly questionable". That's all I wrote about it to you administrators.

Kuiper's edit summary was "not an improvement" and his comment on that talk page was that the article name that I linked to is "some Harald of Norway" (whatever that means).

99% of the readers of that woman's English article aren't going to know the one or the other of her father's name variants from Adam anyway, so I can't see how linking directly was not the best thing to do.

Thought someone else might take the long-running and recent circumstances into account and see that speedy stalk and questionable motive my way: muscle-flexing, that's all. And ask him to stop it.

In any case, shall I stop fixing links so they go directly to article names where clarity is improved? I've done a lot of that and need to know.

I try very hard to only do good work for WP, please believe me! It would be nice to continue to feel motivated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be such a diva. Harald Hardarda is how he's known, it's that simple. The article was moved without discussion sometime in 2009. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Harald Hardarda? That name is totally unknown, sorry. In my books (such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe) he is Harald III Hardraade. I call him Harold III Hardready in English, but that's neither here nor there
 * Do you ever apologize to people you call divas because they think they are following basic policy and trying to do their best? That would be nice.
 * The "idiosyncratic" part of your reprimand was way off.
 * Kindly (note: kindly) answer my question, please! Should I check the history of any and all articles for year-old moves without discussion before linking directly to them, or just stop such linking? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you quibbling over a typo, or just being obtuse? If you think that "Harald Hardrada" is a totally unknown name, then you're badly wrong and incapable of doing a simple search. Read WP:COMMONNAME, properly. I've really got nothing to discuss with you. It's no wonder you keep clashing with people, your editing has little correspondence to reality. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said "Harald Hardrada" is a totally unknown name? I certainly never even implied that. Debrett's and Enc Brit are not "reality". What's the matter with you? Your insults are beginning to smart more than corresponding with you is worth. I turned to you for help. As an administrator, meant to help honest people trying to do their best, you should certainly be ashamed of behaving like this. I am very surprised and disappointed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since "Hardarda" was a typo, I apologize sincerely about mentioning that. I honestly wasn't sure, not knowing you or how precise you usually are. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Principles of grouping article and User:Txchen92
Hi Fences and windows: My attention was brought to the Principles of grouping article because it was listed for AFD, which was then posted on the WikiProject_Psychology project page. As part of the project, I noticed the AFD as one that is relevant to my interests and expertise (see my user page). When I then went and looked at the edit-history for the article and the user page for User:Txchen92, who was the main/original contributor, I saw that he/she had been blocked indefinitely for copyvios. The thing is, looking through the actual text, I see no copyvios. I see a large number of images that he uploaded that were suspected of being copyvios, by image-bots (not humans, as far as I can see), and on the basis of that alone, a new user may have been blocked/scared off. I see that you attempted to elicit some response on his/her part, but it is also possible that a new user (note he/she never edited the talk page, nor the user page) may not have even understood what was happening. From an outside perspective, this looks like a newbie who was making a GF attempt to edit wikipedia ended up getting templated to death, blocked, all without even really knowing what happened. I'm asking on User:Txchen92's behalf whether you would review this indef block, and whether he/she ignored other attempts at communication, like e-mail, since that would be evidence of willfulness on his/her part. Thanks. Edhubbard (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he repeatedly uploaded copyright violations (e.g. the WWF logo), despite me warning him, and refused to communicate. I've got no time for people who ignore clear warnings and breach copyright. Indefinite does not mean infinite - if he cared to appeal and acknowledge his errors, then an admin might unblock him. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Christianityfooter
Links on the Template:Christianityfooter are limited to a list of top-importance Christianity articles. See Template_talk:Christianityfooter. I do like the replacing John Chrysostom on the list with Church Fathers. Propose it here. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mickey Featherstone
Hi, since you evidently going to source this properly, I'm not going to make anything of it. But please do not reverse any deletion carried out citing "BLP" - arbcom has made it clear that's a NO-NO. If you disagree with my deletion, invite me to discuss it with you. If we can't agree, you can go to DRV. You may be right here (although putting a few books in "further reading" is not sourcing and certainly not good enough for negative claims), but we don't reverse BLP deletions just because we'd make a different judgement call. Material remvoed under BLP must not be replaced without consensus.--Scott Mac 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was wrongly removed under BLP, the article had sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that's irrelevant. You don't reverse BLP deletions you think are wrong. You either persuade the deleting admin, or you go to DRV. Second, I don't regard books marked as "further reading" as sufficient sourcing for negative claims in an article. Negative claims require precise sources and "further reading" =! sourcing anyway. But that's the type of discussion we have as you persuade me to reverse myself,or at DRV.--Scott Mac 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're suddenly a stickler for process. There is no point wasting time at DRV if an article is deleted as a negative unsourced BLP when it does actually have sources. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to be unthinking slaves to rules and process. Those books listed in the article were the sources, they were wrongly classed as further reading in this recent edit (and I did check that the books existed and that other sources largely corroborated what was said in the article before restoring it, so I was far from being irresponsible). The problem with the article was that it was written without using in-line references (something that's anathema to me when writing articles), so the references could easily drift and be lost as the article was edited over time, and editors without easy access to the sources might assume that some of the content was unsourced, as had actually happened to the article at least once before. It'd be worth checking the history of such articles before using the nuclear option. At least we've got the beginnings of a properly written article now, but it's a shame it took so many years and the article had to be speedily deleted in order for that to happen. It seems that many Wikipedians wouldn't know how to write a proper article if their life depended on it. I think the suggestion of you listing these deletions somewhere is a good one, so others who know how to research can pick up the pieces after you're done. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Expert review
Hello there,

given the interest you expressed in strategy:Proposal:Expert review, I wanted to bring Expert review to your attention. At this point, it captures the current efforts in this area. There are some obvious ways in which you could help:

1) There's an existing proof-of-concept JavaScript displaying expert reviews for articles for which they are available. That script could be significantly improved, and potentially be promoted to gadget status.

2) We need to develop the product specifications for what expert review in Wikipedia should look like (starting with the simplest implementation that makes sense). The Meta page has some initial draft notes, but mock-ups, thoughts and additional documentation would be much appreciated.

3) We should think about what the most effective and scalable ways are to mobilize large groups of experts to participate in review processes, and to validate their credentials. There is an opportunity right now with the APS, which has just launched a Wikipedia initiative, and is willing to ask its 20,000 members to help with expert assessments. But we should think about the longer term as well.

Your participation in these and other areas would be much appreciated. Hope to see you on Meta,--Eloquence* 01:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, thanks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

 * I mostly just verified what was in the article already, but thanks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate and Rd232
As per the CounterPunch page, RD232 and Bail Ultimate are deleting the editions that I have been making for the article based on the websites you have put up on the grounds that there is a "talk page consensus" for the article. One of the editors (Rd232 who is also an administrator) has accused me of continuing the WP:Battleground behaviour although he funnily enough doesn't have any evidence of my engaging in that type of behaviour.
 * It would be great if you could look into this. Fellytone (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Recently blcoked user
Hi there, I thought you might be interested in seeing this. I was checking a page on my watchlist and noticed this new account editing the same type of articles, in some cases the same articles, and making similiar edits to User:GoldDragon who was recently blocked. I don't want to just make accusations, but there is far too many coincidences for me not to mention this. If I'm out of line, sorry, but since you were invloved in the debate over him, I thought I should be better safe than sorry, just in case it's him. Cmr08 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Kvetch
Hi. I started a page at Kvetch and collected some discussions on its talk page that you may be interested in. There's quite a bit of work to be done before this can go live, but I think it's an important and much-needed feature. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mo Afzal for deletion
The article Mo Afzal is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mo Afzal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gandaliter (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
For that little help with the user Drinas. I have the bad feeling he might come back once in a while (again without any good sources). Iluvalar (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had completely forgotten who Drinas was - the smiley issue. No problem, we don't need people with a COI throwing their weight around citing false information about copyright. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bamber
SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

== Interesting article from National Center for Biotechnology Information about Wikipedia... Thank you! ==

Hi F&W. Thanks indeed. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition to your unreliable list
Hope you don't mind my editing the page. cheers &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. I'd not heard of this one, I dug up some discussions and added links. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just came across this as a recent addition as a source and remembered an RSN discussion on this one. However, I now note that this book is being used extensively across many caste articles which benefit from the vicious circle: Add dubious content to Wikipedia, wait for someone to republish it, add it as a source for these dubious claims! I've got to remove this, I'm guessing there are over at least 100 articles with this as a source. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RS
Hi, I'd like to ask you please, if those two are RS 1, 2. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Newsmax not so much. I did see that article: it's a partisan source, especially as someone from CAMERA wrote it. It's a good example of the thinking of CAMERA, but not really good evidence that such a phenomenon does exist.
 * What is the editorial structure at Asian Correspondent? The author Beck's comments look like a blog, and the site of Hyrid News suggests that Asian Correspondent is indeed a blog site. You can hardly support the existence of such a meme using these sources. Please try to have a little more self-critique when you're writing articles concerning Israel/Palestine. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not use those sources in the article you know. I simply asked for your opinion on those. All the sources used in the article are highly RS, and of course the subject is much more notable than conspiracy theories about Israeli students that you supported so vigorously.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You love to hold a grudge, and you always see editors as "with you or against you". It's really sad. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first-of-all this is an usual argument, where no reasonable arguments are left. Second-of-all it could have been "sad", if it were the case, but it is not. Only today I thanked two editors, who are more than against me, including the one, who only the day before told me to "Shut the**** up" and called my comment "racist", and with this I am done here. I've no interest in continuing that "sad" conversation.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you even bring up that previous article? Answer: it's because you love sniping at people. You can try be on your high horse, but you're just one of many nationalist editors who continually disrupt Wikipedia and drain energy from everyone else. WP:PLAGUE, Don't be a fanatic. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I? I came to your talk page to ask about reliable sources. You responded my questions, but then you made a personal comment about me "Please try to have a little more self-critique when you're writing articles concerning Israel/Palestine." Why? I did not insist those were RS. I asked your opinion politely. I am not a nationalist editor. I wrote 62 articles with 5-6 concerning I/P conflict, and I hardly edit old articles concerning I/P conflict. Do those articles I'm listing below look like they were written by "nationalist editor" Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust;The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib? Do they, Fences and windows? Who from the other side wrote something like those one? Poor wikipedia to have such dishonest administrators as you are. So, here's my advise to you: Stop screaming, and learn your subject before ever again you are to spread lies about me. D: --Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dishonest? Lies? Get lost. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Green-backed for deletion
The article Green-backed is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Green-backed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The nomination includes other green- prefixed partial title match lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

AN/I
I think you may have prematurely closed the Speedy close discussion. I don't think BHG was in a position to call for its closure and I don't think the discsussion has finsihed yet. Also can you please state what the resolution is. Many thanks --Lucy-marie (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no resolution. There is nothing for admins to do there, you can sort it out without any of us. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How would you suggest the best way to resolve the clearly contentious issue of NC:PEER as the last time it was discussed it degenerated and got very nasty.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't understand. Consensus seems to be that the proposal in question should not have been speedily closed, and I expect an admin to re-open it.  Of course, that doesn't require an admin, but it seemed appropriate to let an uninvolved admin do it.  Are you suggesting we just do it?  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I boldly reopened it. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I restored the closed version. As an involved party, B2C should not have made his own decision to override the closing admin.
 * I disagree that there was a consensus to reopen, but whatever B2C or I think is irrelevant: it was up to ANI or the cllosing admin to make a decision to reopen, and no since decision was made. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, discussion was continuing normally again after I reopened, and now BHG closed it again? You consider this issue resolved?  Really?   I spent hours gathering all the info necessary to explain the issue to show how much controversy there was and that discussion was necessary to find consensus while others opposed to change were prematurely closing discussion, and you closed the issue as "resolved" without doing anything?  Sometimes these issues are left open for days before some admin decides to take action (usually after discussion on the ANI dies down).  Why close that down?  If you don't want to take action, fine, but why close the ANI as "resolved" when it's clearly not?  Help, please.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. An uninvolved admin intervened, finally.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
...but I kind of had to, and you were the first sysop I recognized on the ANI thread. NW ( Talk ) 03:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd better watch out where I'm putting that candlestick. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PM800
Hey - thanks for your comments at ANI regarding this user. Another admin offered to indef-block him until he provided a rationale for removing the content and then subsequently ignoring and refusing any requests for discussion. Do you think this is a good idea? I honestly don't know if I'll be around next time this happens, so I think it would be best to catch it in the bud now rather than 'wait and see if it happens again'. Arctic  Night  01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems extreme for one bout of edit warring. Some editors don't think of such a slowly waged campaign as edit warring, so a warning is really necessary to drive the point home. He's been warned now, so the banhammer is poised. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. I just wish there was some way of getting a rationale out of this user... it seems really bizarre, coming back every few months to make one change silently. Arctic  Night  01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in this and this. Warning now. Arctic  Night  01:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the comment on the talk page - it wasn't appropriate, even if it was funny (it related to the IP's own vandalism). That edit summary - I can't see much of a problem, that's pretty mild. I'd disengage from PM800 now before this gets too personal. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think a WQA is needed. This user has repeatedly been making attacks - as an example. It needs to stop. Arctic  Night  02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I've not got a very high view of the effectiveness of WQA as a noticeboard. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My thanks idea
I'll remember not to use the village pump again. Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Family Forensics UK
Everything you say is true. but I didn't write the article. I was just declining what appeared to be an overzealous PROD. I use a razor when using deletion tools: it should take about as much effort to remove something as it did to create it. PROD is a total of 8 characters, so it's up to the proposer to balance that with a little of their own effort. As we can see in this case, it rescued a perfectly good article. Kudos! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't do "overzealous deletion", deletionists annoy the heck out of me. I'd not dug as deep as I do sometimes because I was under the impression only one episode was ever broadcast and that it had received press coverage in a handful of tabloids on a single day. That's a good faith error on my part. I only use prod when I think deletion is genuinely uncontroversial, I never to try to sneak by a deletion that might not stick in AfD. But when I deprod myself I try to do a minimum of verification, partly to insulate against a pending AfD and partly because if I don't it may never happen. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Flagrant brown-nosing
I just dropped by to thank you for being the only admin (as far as I know) who had the insight early on to caution an editor that I had been butting heads with. (Is that cryptic enough?) Thanks. -- Kenatipo  speak! 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, you're supposed to abuse admins, not thank them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I abuse Sarek the Vulcan quite a bit. Does that count?  -- Kenatipo   speak! 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that on-wiki or off-wiki? Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On-wiki. (unless my wife has a secret life I don't know anything about, that is!)  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In passing
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Landeryou Since you took an interest in the editing of this article I thought you might be interested that the same thing was occuring at the WP article for his prime interest, Vex News which I have now requested Semi-Protection for.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

re WP:HARDCORE
Well, no, userfying this page was not a good idea. The page was fairly recently up for an MfD, here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hardcore images. The decision was Keep, and since User:Atmoz didn't give any details you'd have to ask him for his reasoning. But FWIW the headcount was 11-3 in favor of Keep, and one of the commentors voting "Strong Keep" was Jimbo, if that means anything to you, which maybe it doesn't.

Apparently you also deleted the shortcut page WP:HARDCORE. For starters, this is not appropriate - there are a lot of shortcuts that point to userspace. For another, since this was a page deletion, this was an administrative action rather than just an editorial one, so you are getting into some pretty sketchy territory here. Also, you probably should have read the page's talk page first. Anyway, it's discussed some more at the ANI thread. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, you didn't delete the shortcut, it was done by a bot. You need to check for and correct links into a page when you move the page, though. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Jimbo's opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else's. But you can't stop other people editing an essay in project space or it stops being a community essay. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that. We are very loosely governed community and the ideal of moral authority, as embodied by editors who are especially experienced and thoughtful and who carry the interests of the Wikipedia at heart, is important. I think that the founder meets this standard.


 * I note that Jimbo reversed your action. When the founder has to step and reverse one of your actions, it's probably a good time to stop and consider if your action was perhaps precipitate.


 * If you want to be a good admin, the phrase "Well, I made a mistake, and next time I would do it differently" has to be in your repetoire. Otherwise you will not be able to learn and grow in your role as a key editor of this important project.


 * I would propose that two lessons that you could draw from this are: not all appeals to ANI should be taken at face value, and not all appeals to ANI require some action on your part. Pointing out dispute resolution steps so that editors can work out their differences on their own is often a good thing.


 * You made a mistake. It's not a big deal, it happens all the time to all of us. The question is if we are willing to learn from our mistakes. Herostratus (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice lecture. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was an admin myself for a while, and I know that from an emotional standpoint it's hard to admit an error, and so I appreciate your attitude. I know that admins are busy and there's a lot of pressure, and we all do appreciate that work that you do to keep the Wikipedia running smoothly. However, we feel better about ourselves in the long run if we can grow and be better admins, so I'm glad you considered my advice to be nice, and that there are no hard feelings. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, some points taken, but things like "growing in my role as a key editor of this important project" is pretty alien to how I view editing Wikipedia. This is a hobby, not a calling. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, your nomination wasn't very well thought through, was it? Do try a little work before a deletion, especially a WP:TRAINWRECK like this one - is it likely that the second episode of House has no sources writing about it? And the attempted canvassing at WT:NOT is pretty unseemly - you should have waited until the AfD closed.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was, I did, no-one is saying keep this - delete that, irrelevant, it wasn't and no I shouldn't. Why don't you give your opinion at the AfD?  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in doing so. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail Surveillance
Thanks for the invite re: E-mail Surveillance. I only contributed a few edits so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the page. Good luck, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities
Hi Fences and windows. Because you closed Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), you may be interested in Talk:List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you provide a third opinion at User talk:Cunard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Exclusionary rule merger discussion
I've renewed discussion at Talk:Exclusionary rule (which you created) and tagged Exclusionary rule, Fruit of the poisonous tree, Inevitable discovery, and Taint (legal). --Closeapple (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Hello, you have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again, sent you mail 3 days ago. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project
I see from the discussion there that you have an interest in the Incubation project. You may be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator. Regards, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Closure of Articles for deletion/Mikail Lil Pele Prince
While I understand your reasoning, I feel the need to point out that this afd had already been listed for seven days with a consensus to delete having been established. All using BLRPROD accomplishes is keeping a non-notable article around for another ten days, when it could be deleted immediately. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but then the nominator won't learn anything, will they? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think you missed that the BLPPROD was already open, so actually it only has 1.7 days to run. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Thread
Hi Fences, At present I'm wondering if theres anything else that needs to be added (by me or otherwise) or that I should do regarding that thread to assist it come to a timely colsure?  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty much done and dusted. I've closed it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Raul654 is now persisting that my WQA stays open. My understanding is that WQA is a discussion between the two parties concerned, myself and Ebe have both considered the discussion finished, I have apologised via email, you have deleted the page in question and issued me with a stern warning (Which I have taken onboard) I feel that Raul reverting my closure (which had sound reasoning behind it) is more so out of his vandetta for me than it is out of any good faith interest. If Raul reverts my closure again (which I believe I am allowed to do given the outcome and the lack of input from Ebe for 6 days, and the header that implies editors can close alerts about themselves) could you please intervene seeing as you are the admin who performed administrative action in that thread and there seems to be nothing further to gain from it? Best,  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

NovaSkola
Hi, NovaSkola asks for Twinkle back (, User talk:NovaSkola). Since you added him to the blacklist, can you respond to this? Thanks, Amalthea  17:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've done so. I've included links to the relevant threads from last August. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes, I have read this completely and I apologise for confusing good faith edits and reverting vandalism. --NovaSkola (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi, FaW; I notice that you've just redacted an edit-summary from WP:ANI, and it appears to be this one – if I remember right, and it was just a short string of "fuck fuck fuck" etc., then it doesn't appear to meet any of the RevDel criteria. Perhaps you could consider reinstating it? Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was grossly insulting and disruptive. We're too tolerant of gross incivility, and Orangemarlin has crossed the line. What do you think that edit summary adds to warrant wanting it back? Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i.e. criteria 2 and 3. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not for me to suggest reasons for inclusion of edit-summaries. At least one of the criteria must be satisfied in order for it to be removed, and I am not convinced that fuck fuck fuck was anything more than dull but ordinary incivility. And since you ask, the benefit of keeping it on public display is that it is available for general scrutiny; furthermore, no harm can come of it. Advance ANI-notice that if you again decline to restore it I shall be starting a thread for wider input. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag► Regent ─╢ 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. That is not "ordinary incivility", it was intended to be grossing insulting by Orangemarlin. "Ordinary incivility" is brusqueness, sarcasm, the occasional piece of offhand swearing, this is far beyond that. We need to draw a line against that kind of behaviour. If you really must you can make an issue of this at AN/I, but I'm not going to restore it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F&W, please don't fabricate non-existent policies to justify your behaviour. WP:CIVIL is extremely explicit that except in very limited circumstances (which don't apply here) editing others' comments is unacceptable; this is policy for good reason, and this is decidedly not one of those circumstances. With no comment on the merits or otherwise of any party in the case, it's patently clear that the behaviour of Orangemarlin is relevant to a discussion on Orangemarlin's behaviour, and you are not the Chief Censor of Wikipedia. – iridescent  20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not invented anything. Redacting insults against subjects of articles it quite within WP:BLP, and redacting grossly insulting edit summaries is within WP:REVDEL. Go do something useful instead of supporting attacks on living people and gross incivility. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear the Orangemarlin's swearing is uncivil as defined by "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." . OM is disruptive to the project. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's definitely incivil. But if you'd read the relevant set of criteria, Michael, you'd be aware that material needs to be grossly incivil in order to qualify for RevDel. ╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely grossly uncivil. And persistently so. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're old enough to look up the word grossly in a dictionary yourself, and you'll find that it qualifies the word incivil in the predictable way. ╟─TreasuryTag► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag, if you're not going to talk reasonably, please don't post here. Your last comment was totally unconstructive. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its level of constructive-ness was designed to match that of the comment to which it was a response... ╟─TreasuryTag► ballotbox ─╢ 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And this latest comment helps how? Stop point scoring. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And this latest comment helps how? I was providing an explanation to you as to why my prior comment had appeared to you unconstructive. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► Counsellor of State ─╢ 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Go away. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now would you say that was grossly incivil or just incivil...? <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * F&W, FWIW ... add me to the camp that thinks you might be getting a bit too overheated about this. With all due respect, I think it's just a touch overly sensitive.  I have the utmost respect for our wP:CIVIL policy and all, but maybe some things just got taken the wrong way.  I think there's a wp:tea link somewhere.  Best — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ?  22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, have been quite public in my view that TreasuryTag's behavior on the above thread, as well as his handling of the situation, have been quite poor. Don't feel like the whole world is against you... it isn't.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When it feels like the whole world is against you, remember cats. Cats are always nice.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cats, Lifebaka? Have you ever met one? Sure, I love cats. Most notably the one who has now climbed on my desk, knocked my pen on the floor, lay down on top of the papers I need to grade and is now contemplating whether he wants to let me pat him or whether he wants to bite me. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It was me who started the ANI against Orangemarlin and reported him becuase he has been swearing and using the f word all over the place, deleting material becuase it goes against his own personal opinions and calling a scientist from an article (senapathy) a nutjob and demented and many other bad words. He recieved no warning for any of this and still hasnt, also on the ANI page he continued to use the f word many times and got not warning, now if this was the other way round and i was doing this i would be banned or blocked. I decided to set up a little test, i went over to an article and in the edit section did exactly the same as what Orangemarlin did even used his own words, however no suprise i recieved a 3 hour block. The user Orangemarlin seems to have friends in high places, people are scared of him, he gets no warnings, he edits are abusive and biased. I have quit wikipedia. Wikipedia is not neutral. Editors like myself do not stand a chance on here. From what i have seen windows and fences seemed to be the only admin dealing with the case correctly, sadly some users who are friends of Orangemarlin are now on Orangaemarlins userpage claiming fences has lost the plot becuase of the decision he made. I had no idea you could swear on wikipedia and how abusive editors are not even blocked, an admin left a message on my page saying i had not understood wiki properly becuase i thought wiki was a free swearing zone, if any of you want to point the finger point it at me, i started this whole thing, i guess i espected too much from wikipedia, anyway im quit wikipedia and chill out becuase as mentioned it was me who started it all by reporting a user who it seems has a large amount of friends on here 86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: RevDel, ANI
Courtesy note: Your RevDel of WP:ANI has been reverted by User:Prodego after an interesting discussion. --<font color="#228B22">Avillia <font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the situation are in the discussion; I hope they are helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deliberately stayed away from ANI (and Wikipedia) and I'd not noticed until now that TreasuryTag had started a thread about this. I'm glad to see nothing came of that timewasting and that nobody decided to restore the earlier defamatory comments that Orangemarlin made. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hi F&W. I know it might seem like you've had a rough day or two here at WP, but I wanted to tell you that I do appreciate all the fine work you do here. You are a damn fine Wikipedian, and truly one of the best copy editors I've ever had the pleasure of meeting here. I have to admit, you are 10x the writer than I will likely ever be. I just wanted to stop by and try to put a smile on your face, tell you to enjoy life, and wish a very happy and enjoyable Easter. All my best, — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
thanks! Cerejota (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque
Hi - I have to take you to account on this. Why did you not initiate a discussion first on merging this article as recommended here, on whether this article was needed? This article has been reviewed and on DYK, so its not like others haven't examined it. Also, it has data regarding the state of Hindus in those countries that warrants a fork. Please do not jump to conclusions like this - initiate a discussion first. <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva, <font color="black" face="cursive">Lord Blackadder  05:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was based on only three references and the reaction section fits much better within the main article (which still needs development itself). I couldn't find notable reactions outside the countries you listed from my searches so the section won't expand much. Merging consolidates the material and helps the reader - a separate article simply fragments it. I know you can't get a DYK for a new article section, but our prime concern should be towards our readers. Do you honestly think the material is substantial enough for a separate article? It certainly doesn't distort the main article as it stands. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be really clear - no information was lost, it's all at Demolition of Babri Masjid. So restoring the article doesn't add any content and the prose is only 5639 B. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, you need to have a discussion - you must not decide this on your own. That is the part that bothers me. I think the material is substantial and distinct enough because it is actually going into a different subject - Persecution of Hindus. That subject is quite substantial and arguably requires a fork of Demolition of Babri Masjid. This event had huge implications on the situation of Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh and other Muslim nations to this day. I have not stopped working on expanding this article further. <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva, <font color="black" face="cursive">Lord Blackadder  05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's a point-of-view fork - that bothers me. You think that persecution of Hindus is important so you want a separate article to highlight this aspect of the response to the demolition, but the content doesn't warrant that as it stands. You'll have to muster substantially more references and ensure that you don't write what is ostensibly an article about international reactions to the mosque being demolished as a coatrack for a Hindu view on the dispute. As for merging without discussion, anyone can decide to merge unilaterally: it's called being bold (Bold-Revert-Discuss, and here we are). And you don't own the article, remember. Fences  &amp;  Windows  09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I firmly disagree. This article was approved for DYK and put on the main page, which meant other editors passed eyes over this and didn't have a problem with it being an independent article. Now on top of that you decide to end that without discussion? You are now alleging bias and WP:NPOV - when you just duplicated that info into Babri Masjid demolition? You did not even post any courtesy note informing me, the lead author, of your decision to do so. Who exactly has a problem with WP:OWN here, me or you? This is no WP:COATRACK or POV fork - there is no Hindu point of view but what is being documented is that actually a religious conflict broke-out/aggravated in other countries as a result of this Indian event. Nobody owns anything on Wikipedia, so when a DYK article is to be converted into a redirect, it merits a little discussion. And please note - I have no problems if a community discussion leads to this article being merged. That's perfectly alright with me, but provided its a consensus opinion. <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva, <font color="black" face="cursive">Lord Blackadder  10:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have a little too much faith in the DYK procedures, they're not at all rigorous or a badge of approval of any kind. Hoaxes have made it through.
 * The reason it's not neutral is that it is using mainly Hindu sources and your choice of wording and your summary of the dispute demonstrates that lack of neutrality - your summary makes it seem almost reasonable that the mosque was demolished, it pitches the dispute from a Hindu perspective. Further, separating out violence against Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh removes the focus from the events in India itself (and the adverse effect on Hindus and Muslims alike), which is what most of the sources actually discuss. The lead up to the demolition and the violence that ensued really should be discussed in one article based on the coverage in reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand completely. My reason in pointing out this article's acceptance on T:DYK is that at least a few editors found it encyclopedic enough and therefore you need to have a discussion rather than regard this article as one tagged under WP:CSD or something. All I am repeatedly saying here is that you need to talk with your fellow editors. If you had bothered to raise your concerns with me first, I would have volunteered to start the talkpage discussion or even an WP:AFD myself. Again, what do you mean "Hindu sources"? Are NYT and UNHCR "Hindu sources? Since when did the word "mob" become so politically incorrect, or "crowds" become so appropriate to describe a group of people destroying something? As for focus, this article asserts that the Babri mosque demolition had a broad, international impact and not just in India and between Indian Hindus and Muslims. As this article is separate, editors have more freedom to go into the effect of the mosque demolition into individual nations and societies - hence the leeway to dwelve a little into the impact of the demolition on Hinduism in Pakistan, Hinduism in Bangladesh, etc., on the Hindu-Muslim relations in these countries. An "international reaction." <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva <font color="black" face="cursive">Lord Blackadder  10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LABEL for why "mob" is the exactly the kind of word to not use to label groups. Stick to facts, keep emotive words like that out of articles unless directly quoting. Your summary relied on Indian newspapers, stated as fact some disputed statements, and called the tens of thousands of Hindu/BJP protesters who destroyed the mosque a "procession". So please do mind your neutrality - I'm not saying it's deliberate. I'm not wedded to merging this - I have no particular personal interest in these events - but I want to avoid "International reaction to..." articles spinning out of control and my merge aimed to do that (e.g. see the quote-mined mess that is International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which I've yet to tackle). My concerns about neutrality only arose after you responded and I re-read the content and sources more carefully. A real problem is that much of the in-depth analysis (e.g. see Google Scholar) is behind paywalls so we have to rely on less reliable and more biased news reporting instead in lieu of that. Writing a neutral article about events like these takes real care and effort in sourcing, particularly paying attention to WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK. Paying more attention to the repercussions to Hindus outside India than the effects on people of all religions in India will leave our content unbalanced, even if it's spread over more than one article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - take a look at this source. I am describing the event with a little more detail supplied by this article. I still disagree over "mob" - its a very valid term and was not applied in any non-factual sense. I also disagree about the "paying more attention to the repercussions to Hindus outside India" - there is not any "more" attention being paid. There was hardly any data at all about the post-Babri fall-out in Muslim countries neighbouring India, and no existing data was omitted to include data on the fallout on Hindu minorities elsewhere. Like I've said, this article allows us to go into more detail about how the Babri masjid demolition deeply affected the societies of other nations as well.


 * I'm glad that the edge to our debate has gone. All I will reiterate is that it would have been wiser to discuss this first - I have no issues with this being merged, and if it comes out improved, all the better :) <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva <font color="black" face="cursive">Lord Blackadder  17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Why have you merged International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash into the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article. There is no consensus for such a merger, and the consensus reached was that these two articles should remain separate. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No there wasn't a consensus to keep. There wasn't a particular consensus, but I merged because that was clearly the best way to handle the remaining material. No content was deleted in the merge, so what purpose does it serve to have separate articles? I doesn't help readers, who would have to navigate to another article to see the content. The remaining content amounted to about seven lines once merged. The previous article version had umpteen quotes, but the indiscriminate quote mine was edited down. Show me what actual factual content is missing from 2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash that was in the merged version of the article. You can even include the map of the days of mourning if you like, though I don't see what value it adds. Fences  &amp;  Windows  09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual harassment in education in the United States
I only set it up as a requested move as i was unable to persuade the person who created the problem to revert - see User_talk:Student7. He accepts that there are problems with the current arrangement but wont allow reversal. IMO the whole setup is a nonsense as i explain here: Talk:Sexual_harassment_in_education_in_the_United_States. You can reply here.--Penbat (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can get consensus for a merge, great, that can be done without admin tools. Otherwise, just pick out the non-US and more general parts and selectively merge those back into the main article, that shouldn't be too hard to do. The situation and law in the US is probably unique enough to warrant a separate page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Student7 unilaterally made a split by creating Sexual harassment in education in the United States without any consensus. It is my view that the split is completely unviable. I think i am entitled to revert the split by simply having Sexual harassment in education which was the original situation and it is up to User:Student7 to try to gain consensus for a split. Quite a few articles have US law specific sections (such as Sexual_harassment, School_violence and School_bullying) but it is ludicrous to have a new article just for that. You might expect the structure of Sexual harassment in education to be broadly consistent with Sexual harassment. --Penbat (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then get consensus and merge it back together, leaving a redirect. Redirects are cheap. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont need a consensus to undo something that was done without consensus.--Penbat (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then go ahead and merge. Sheesh. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

not in internet phenomena
Well it used to be. Nex Carnifex (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
LordVetinari (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WT:BLP
I took the liberty of quoting you at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. -- JN 466  09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! I hoped that simple idea might get picked up, I thought pitching it at Jimbo's talk page was better than launching straight into a policy page discussion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Aguilar
Hello Fences and windows, thank you for taking the time to clean up the sourcing problem in the Rebecca Aguilar article, it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Obscene Publications Act 1959. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
— BQZip01 — talk 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks
It would help if you would stop users (particularly user:Concerned Vancouvrite going round adding ridiculous "notability" tags to articles. Probably the most ridiculous is the one to George Taylor (botanist).  I removed it.  Maybe I'll get banned again, because that would be really logical. Flying Fische (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez. I've pointed this out to him. Taylor is plenty notable. However, more constructive than just removing the tag would be to expand the article with sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworking ELNO on Official Links
Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice," I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BioMed Central
I don't want to be pedantic, but I do think you are wrong. See the BMC journal list: there are three "Current Opinion" journals that are not OA. In addition, I think it's a bit much to tag all journals as "OA journal" and then the publisher as well. According to categorization rules, articles should not be categorized in a cat if they are already in a subcat of it, so if we maintain "BMC journals" as a subcat of "OA journals", no BMC journals should be categorized as "OA journals", but nobody will know this and I think it is clearer to categorize the individual journals. Anyway, I think that it is incorrect to categorize the "BMC journals" cat as "OA journals" if there are three journals that are not OA (even if they don't have an article yet). Let me know what you think.

BTW, I did not add the OA cat to BMJ. I'm not sure it's correct (no time now to check). Shouldn't such a journal be called "hybrid" OA instead of "OA"? --Crusio (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those Current Opinion journals aren't "BioMed Central journals". They were owned by Thomson Reuters since 2002 when they bought Current Drugs Ltd., and they closed last year, e.g. see . Those journals appearing in that list was nothing more than marketing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strange, but it looks like you're correct. My bad, I didn't look farther than the BMC journal list. Nevertheless, in order to be compliant with categorization rules, someone will have to remove the "OA journal" cat from all the articles on BMC journals. I assume you will take care of that. --Crusio (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – <font face="Cambria"> OhioStandard  (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)