User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 17

Ben Gurion Airport
Hello, I want to share with you a problem that I have with a user KARPARTHOS. Two weeks ago, the user started to open edit war against me (I will not lie that I resumed with it and I know that was wrong and I should report immediately). He began to add seasonal operations for almost every airline (without proof) or even delete airlines (without proof). At one point he began to submit proof that only strengthen my claim that he was wrong for example: AIR MALTA, the airline operates charter flights all the year on the Tel Aviv - Malta route. The user decided that this airline operates seasonal flights and added proof that it contradicts his claim, which says simply that the airline operates flights to Israel but did not say at all that the airline operates seasonal flights to Tel Aviv. Another example, The airline TRAVEL SERVICE operating flights between Prague-Tel Aviv all the year and seasonal flights between Tel Aviv-Budapest, but KARPARTHOS decided to delete Budapest and write that the airline operating seasonal flights to Prague and after 7 days he delete Travel Service from the article and he didnt added some proof and he knows himself that was not true. Smart Wings operates seasonal flights to Bratislava for Travel Service. I must say it was written all over on the nespaper and on the internet and I have attached true proof. But, the user decided to delete it.Same thing happened with BRUSSELS AIRLINES CROATIA AIRLINES, VUELING and CZECH AIRLINES(the airline continues to operate flights to Tel Aviv and I've proven). In addition, a friend of KARPARTHOS, called RADIO FAN, decided (and I'm still in shock) that there are airports in Tiberias, Jerusalem (Closed), Nazareth, Acre and the Dead Sea. As an Israeli I can tell you confidently that there are no Airports there!. Radio Fan decided that Arkia Airlines operating flights to this places and delete ALL the international routes of Arkia. He gave false evidence that says there the most visited places in Israel (Dead Sea, Tiberias...) that Arkia Organized for tours (Arkia is also a travel agency). Karparthos continues to add this wrong places and he ignored from the proof that I gave to him. I can tell you confidently that he doing it on purpose and I don't know why he doing it.He treats me badly, he wrote to me an statement comment like that he need to find a special solution for me.He continues to lie, he writes to people so they would think I'm destroying the value and it's insulting and annoying. Please help me!! --Assaf050 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get involved, but Fastily has protected the article. You need to use reliable sources and cite them in the article. If people disagree, stay calm and use the talk page of the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see
Please see Talk:Serge_Gainsbourg. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dry Needling dispute
It was never my intention to present what you defined as "opinion" in my postings. I noticed that in the article several terms and postings were put forth that were biased (i.e. referring to the needles as "acupunture needles" when that proper term is "solid filiform needles" gives a non-neutral support to the assertions that some acupuncturists make). Additionally, the Oregon issue, IMHO was being presented in a manner that gave undue support to the assertion by the acupuncturists and instead of removing their text I felt that is was fair to present the other side of the issue. I was not aware that that was violation of the rules and I had no problem with you editting the section to make it more neutral.

But I do have a problem with the way the September 2011 appeal was referenced. It is not just a OBCE appeal but includes what was the unusual step of the Oregon AG getting directly involved in the request for reconsideration. The text sayinig "In July 2011 the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon issued an order asserting that dry needling is "substantially the same" as acupuncture." is not quite accurate. It was a single commissioner issuing a stay of the admin rule until the whole court could review the admin rule. The way it was written in the article gives undue support to the acupuncturist's claim that dry needling is the same as acupuncture (which is an opinion not a fact.)  That is why I felt that it was necesary to change the last part of the paragraph to "In September 2011,the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Oregon Attorney General appealled said order on the grounds that they feel the commissioner who issued the order was mistaken in his assertion.". It is a more balanced phrasing.

Since that edit another poster has tried to change to article to be a pro-acupuncture position text. Another poster and I have tried to bring it back to the text you editted. Unfortuatnely that other poster has once again tried to post opinion. I am requesting that you resolve this issue. Thanks.

FYI, at this point in time there is no secondary source referencing the Oregon case but the American Chiropractic Assn now defines dry needling as separate from acupuncture but their view is not accessable by the general public so it can not be referenced in the article.Compchiro (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing it, that's great! I can't resolve this entirely by myself, so I'm going to post at the Medicine WikiProject to ask for help.
 * Refining the accuracy of the ruling and appeal is a good idea. But where our article now says "the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Oregon Attorney General appealled said order", what exact wording from the reference supports this?
 * I do want to try to keep this recent dispute in the article, but we try to not use documents such as court rulings or letters - newspapers, magazines or books are what we usually rely on for sourcing. We should also keep it very brief - we have a principle called "due weight" which is part of our policy on neutrality, and that says we should write in proportion to the coverage of a subtopic in reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently the link to the actual Request for Reconsideration was incorrect and did not actually go to the Sept 2011 filing. That has been corrected.  A call to the OBCE confirmed that the AG actually got involved in this and not just as a technicality.  Although I understand that it is preferable to not use court filings, this dispute has not received any outside neutral coverage.  The OBCE's comment was something to the effect of "only the acupuncturists think that dry needling is theirs alone and no one here in Oregon want to give them any press on this issue.". Apparently acupuncturists have tried this in other states only to be laughed out of court or the legistlature. But again than k you for advisingme on proper policy. Compchiro (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification about the VDM Publishing article user who got banned
I took a break from Wikipedia editing but one user gave me a badge for the article editing, so I checked the page, Another user who got |blocked for using multiple accounts and disruptive behavior, just as I claim months before, yet threatened me to take administrative action claiming I act disruptive at |Talk:VDM_Publishing. Kasaalan (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary neuroscience
About Homininae: Hello! Since I have largely contributed to the Homininae page in the past month, I can only say that I’ve always written that what I proposed is not the mainstream view and provided links to find the mainstream view. Mainstream does not mean non-speculative, it is temporarily the majority view. In this field things will always remain speculative, and mainstream views change fast. Prominent academics propose the alternative view.. How can a photo of a gorilla skull be not objective ? The data on gorilla morphology may be a bit boring, it is facts, one could remove the numbers and make it shorter. The proposed tree was supported by at least three academic reliable sources: Richard Dawkins, Adrienne Zihlman, and the author of the "Paranthropus aethiopicus" page of the "Online Biology Dictionary" I have provided all the references.

About Evolutionary neuroscience: You are right: the photo of Habilis was just a way to suggest evolution, if you have a better idea... Genetics of mental retardation seemed unfit, which is disputable because it is the only way to learn about brain development in human, but why remove the sections on model organisms too : C.elegans, Drosophila and mouse, which are obviously relevant ? And it is pure destruction, no construction. What is proposed instead ? The « evolutionary neuroscience » article was almost empty, it is back to its original state, very clean indeed! Nothing had been added from 7 june 2010 to 23 october 2011, the article can stay empty for several more years at this pace. It is better to plan contents and give a framework for others to add and improve. You could remove the “genetics in human” section and replace it by something that you find more relevant. I have been the major contributor in the past month, but there have bee several others too, that have contributed positively, not destroying everything. If model organisms are irrelevant, what is relevant ? Tell us ! Why don’t you write something relevant if you are competent ? Deleting everything with no proposal this is purely negative! Not a single sentence has been added to describe another point of view. I can agree that “genetics of mental retardation” may be disputable, but if model organisms are irrelevant too, could you explain what is evolutionary neuroscience? Why has the article remained almost empty for 6 years? I proposed one way out, it was by no means complete, it was work in progress… P'tit PierreP&#39;tit Pierre (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! Well it’s easy, you’ve trashed all my work and now you’re left with an almost blank page, we will see what you are able to write on “Evolutionary Neuroscience” in the next few weeks…Cheers P'tit PierreP&#39;tit Pierre (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Involved admin
The concept of "involved admin" does not include admins who are involved with a situation in an administrative capacity. So even if Xeno proposed restrictions and then enforced them, that on its own would not make Xeno "involved" in the sense that your unblock summary on R.F. implied. My sense is that he recused as an arb on the recent case so that he could lay out the issues with R.F's editing. That again is involvement in an administrative capacity, which would not prevent him from enforcing the restriction.

Did you contact Xeno to discuss your unblock before you performed it? It appears that R.F. did objectively violate the terms of his editing restrictions, in which case the block was sound. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd add to that (I was, indeed, drawn by the same block summary) that Xeno recused as an arbitrator because he was acting as an admin in this case. You're arguing that because he recused as an arb because of administrative involvement, he must recuse from administrative involvement?  Surely, you see how circular that is?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Coren, maybe Xeno expressed to the Arb mailing list that his recusal was as you describe. On the request he simply said "Recuse".  Moreover his comments as a non-party (as he insists he is) to the request were hostile to say the least.  For him to claim he is non-involved even from that evidence is somewhat stretching credulity.  Moreover MSGJ, CBM and Xeno (and possibly Fram) seem to work in cahoots now, turning up one after another at the request page, on my talk and here.  Certainly the image they are creating is less than edifying. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC).


 * My mistake was not making it more clear why I recused - which was to continue to function in an administrative capacity with respect to your continued semi/automated violation of community norms and editing restrictions. Though, this does not excuse Fences and windows' unilateral unblock without consultation. – xeno talk 14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus on the user's talk page that the block is appropriate. Therefore it was wrong for you to unilaterally unblock, especially without discussion. I would suggest that the block is reset to its orginal duration, and ask that next time you take more care with your unblocks. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * CBM. A block is only sound if it protects the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC).


 * The consensus that establishes community sanctions establishes that blocks under those sanctions protect the encyclopedia. Once the sanctions are established, they serve as a sort of the amendment to the blocking policy with regard to the sanctioned editor, allowing blocks under certain circumstances when the ordinary blocking policy might not. For this reason, it is inappropriate to try to use the regular blocking policy to analyze blocks that are made pursuant to editing restrictions. Instead we rely on the wording of the restrictions themselves. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the one hand there was no consensus. On the other the wording is ludicrous. On the third hand, implementing a rule (any rule) for the sake of the rule itself is pointless, and often negative. Even in legal situations, prosecution takes "the public interest" into account. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

I am not looking for an apology - I would simply advise that, in future, you be guided by the advice at Blocking policy and contact the blocking administrator and/or engage the community prior rather than issuing unilateral unblocks (especially for blocks made under community-imposed restrictions). I do not consider myself wp:involved (as my past interactions with Rich Farmbrough have been administrative in nature); however, your belief that I was "far too involved" is something that could have been explored had you contacted me or initiated a thread at the administrators' noticeboard prior to taking action. I'm not sure why you feel that the editing restriction should not be enforced as written - unnecessary and non-consensus-based changes from to  and the like are one of the reasons the restriction was put in place. Complying with this restriction is not at all difficult or troublesome; and is as simple as deleting or disabling a rule - I see that Rich Farmbrough has wisely done so while his editing restriction is under discussion. – xeno talk 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, I have initiated a thread to review the editing restriction given the situation that has been created here with this ill-considered unblock; see Administrators' noticeboard. I would also draw your attention to my reply here. – xeno talk  14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm back from an absence from my computer. I'm not going to apologise for a unilateral unblock, I still view Xeno as far too involved to make admin actions in this case. He went looking for a reason to block, which always leads to poor outcomes. Such a block deserves no respect. Nothing in the diffs he provided was disruptive and by only pointing to a breach of the letter of some restrictions, Xeno has demonstrated merely that he is an excellent lawyer. If the consensus at WP:AN goes against Rich Farmbrough and thus my action in unblocking, as it seems to be, then I can further see that most admins here are just interested in wielding power and driving away editors. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not go looking for a reason to block - I noticed that Rich Farmbrough was committing the exact same type of edits that lead to his edit restriction being imposed in the first place, and blocked accordingly.

Nomination of Z Electric Vehicle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Z Electric Vehicle is 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/Z Electric Vehicle 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrus K. Bettis
Neither if us seem to be able to find his middle name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Some people don't have middle names, just middle initials. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete File:Tierra del Sol Middle School Photo.jpeg
It's not being used, you might as well delete it. JC Talk to me My contributions 23:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bechamp
I saw your note about Antoine Bechamp at WT:MED. I agree that the article, as edited by the Bechamp enthusiast, was bloated and basically unreadable, and deluged the reader with footnotes in an effort to present a revisionist version of history as undisputed fact.

So... I tried rewriting the article from the ground up, as a stub, using only independent, reliable secondary sources (which are surprisingly few in number). This was the result. I'd like to invite you to take a look, comment, or edit as you see fit - I just wanted to give you a heads-up since you mentioned it at WT:MED. Cheers. MastCell Talk 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good plan. It was out of control and this is a good restart. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Peter Morris (surgeon) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to HLA


 * Single-unit recording (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Eccles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge Wikipedia society
I've created a page at Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, please sign up to that and help coordinate future efforts! Sorry for the sloppiness over the past few months about this. Deryck C. 18:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2009 G-20 London summit protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Carbon trading


 * Tom Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Intermix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Norman Scarth - legal threats and outing
I've raised this at WP:BLPN because of legal threats at OTRS. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Erythema ab igne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heat pack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Stephen Hinchliffe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serious Fraud Office, Department of Trade and Industry and James Wilkes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Hurley Clarification
Hi, I see you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hurley on July 2010. Was the article about the Chuck Hurley in these articles?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70691.html ^ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bob-vander-plaats-endorses-rick-santorum-huckabee-race ^ http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/iowa-conservative-group-denies-wrongdoing-in-santorum-endorsement.php ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/31/rick-santorum-iowa-caucus-republican http://www.thefamilyleader.com/inside-tfl/leadership

RichAlger
 * Nope, not him. Replying on your talk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Open navbox and new WikiProject
Hi, thanks for your recent edits to Template:Open navbox. I was recently involved in a Cfd that resulted in the title but I'd be interested to discuss what would be the best WP:NDESC title to use for the topic. I agree "Open access" is to narrow.

I also wanted to alert you to the recently created WikiProject: WikiProject Open Access. It's actually on the broader topic, but it needs a name too. Hope you'll take a look and consider joining, or adding it to your watch list. – Pnm (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I chose the word "methodologies" because it points to the how-and-what of these techniques, whereas a word like "movements" points to the why-and-so-what. Having seen the usage in sources I'd be happy to switch – better to use a title that others use than one made up here. I think using "open" in quotes is unwieldy, but open movements (no quotes) seems good all around. Open source is the article about these movements. Do you think it should be moved to Open movements? In my opinion Openness should be a disambiguation page.


 * I wasn't pleased with the way this Tfd was closed either, and I think we all agree aspects of the old template should be incorporated into Open navbox.


 * "Open movements" sounds to me like a good name for the WikiProject. – Pnm (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Open movements is good for the WikiProject, possibly good for Open source too - I'd not realised that was the "umbrella" article. I need to think more about it and look at the uses of "Open source" as an umbrella term for openness. Open source should be highlighted more on the Openness page, which is in effect acting as a disambig page, though one of similar concepts rather than shared names. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:2006PR Original Reynolds 2.89MB credit Dave Pflederer.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2006PR Original Reynolds 2.89MB credit Dave Pflederer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Fences and windows,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links
With rgd to the Pratt Family Association. (I'm going to create its page.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:PRESTO card
You blocked User:PRESTO card because of the name, but there are multiple related sandboxes. Should they have been deleted? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone might find material in them that could be of use. You can definitely MfD them if you like. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you...
...for rescuing RealtyTrac Ottawahitech (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
deleted--Ankara (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice
You participated in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, which occured following the closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24. Be advised that I have opened Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Roux
For your information, I now know exactly where to put it; check out the 2 most recent contributions I made (other than this one itself.) Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it to the correct page, namely Wikiquette assistance. This was my first time with that page, so please fix me if I didn't use that page right. Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, just drop it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, please realize that I went to Wikiquette assistance for the first time ever. I followed the directions carefully, but I needed to be a little braver with Roux. I knew it would make sense to write it at User talk:Roux, but I was too afraid that he would respond himself too quickly. I needed to be a little brave. Georgia guy (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I followed the directions carefully" - that is a statement, I'll be charitable in my phrasing, which is at factual odds with observed reality.


 * Quote from WP:WQA:
 * Notify the involved user(s); place a short and polite statement on their talk page
 * → ROUX   ₪  21:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm very sorry to continue, but please listen. A few times, on my talk page, Wikipedians have been teaching me a little about vandalism. I know an important fact. (I've calmed down, seriously.)

Vandalism edits are always bad, but sometimes edits are not really vandalism even if they are bad. I know this very well; and I want you to study all edits I've made in Wikipedia within the past month unrelated to the village pump discussion I had today. I make mostly good edits. I know the encyclopedia well. I know what edits are good and what edits are bad; the only thing I have trouble with is knowing what edits to call vandalism. Do you understand all this?? (No, this is unrelated to Roux's edits; it's merely related to understanding the truth about my edits. Thus, this is actually a new discussion whose subject is me understanding what is vandalism.)

I especially remember from 2006 when I had an edit war with someone named Macaw 54. Although his edits were on the bad side, I was the one who got the blame initially. It took a while, but by September 2006, it was known that Macaw 54 was a sockpuppet of PrimeTime and was blocked indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The key is to try to avoid labelling edits that appear to be made in good faith as vandalism, as it can drive potentially good contributors away. It's not rocket science. End of discussion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I always try my best describing all edits that I make. Similarly, anyone who says I labelled an edit I called vandalism is not vandalism must explain politely why it isn't. Georgia guy (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple and easy answer is to use the phrase "Does not appear constructive because XXX" rather than "vandalism" and we can all go about our merry business. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for the research resources you provided on my Village Pump post. I really appreciate it!

Audrey Anabeyta (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WQA (Georgia Guy and Roux)
Can't you please put this topic out of its misery?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for suggestions regarding Cabriana Sea Skiffs. I have recreated the article with the correct (I think) name and incorporated the citations you suggested using. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The Game (mind game)
Regarding The Game (mind game). I could be wrong, as I am new to Wikipedia, but are citations 4 and 5 even legitimate? They are used to cite questionable claims, i.e. "Some players have developed strategies for making other people lose, such as saying "The Game" out loud, by associating it with common items or phrases, or writing about The Game on a hidden note, in graffiti in public places, or on banknotes". Is this not the English Wikipedia? How can someone such as myself, who unfortunately only speaks and understands English, edit an EN-WP article properly if the resources are in another language? I can't even tell if they support the article or not. Sal Calyso (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The People's Choice (political party)
As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/The People's Choice (political party). Robofish (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Cera And Ellen Page listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Cera And Ellen Page. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Cera And Ellen Page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Yaksar (let's chat) 06:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Project Interview
Hello, my name is Alex and I'm just letting you know that I've emailed you the interview for our project. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses. Stepiena (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

About Battle of Canton
Long time no see. I'm the guy as what you saw last year. Your article is still short since you had been starting edit. I suggest you upgrade the content that would be better because it would be awful when TOW starts. Break a leg.--俠刀行 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "my article", I suggest you leave me to edit as I please. As I remember it you wanted to delete it out of spite and pretended to not understand English. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We all prefer to contribute an article whatever you said. In my opinion, there's no deny expand more as you expected me to do so.
 * First, English is not my native language so it's hard to write something that makes sense.
 * Secondly, you expanded it more than what I have done for it. So who is the best choice? It's you. I'm serious to tell you all this thing because it's going to be TOW after months. So please and Happy mother's day.--俠刀行 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure wish I had gotten involved in THIS discussion.
I can across the subject in a recent AFd for his recently released film and expect to hear about him again when a recently created article about the book which inspired the film itself goes to AFD. Though it might have felt as if you were bumping into a stone wall with its nominator, your analysis at the 2009 AFd was spot on. Anyways... in seeing the article on him had had maintenance tags on it for almost a year, what I did over the last couple days was to address the article's format and style and then expand and source with what I found online. It was not until I was pretty much finished that I looked at the talk page and learned of the 2009 AFD, and that there were sources I had not used. Might you look in on the Friedman aticle to see if it needs further tweaks? Thanks. On a sidenote, it might be prudent that both articles I mentioned above (specially as they do not yet have enough independent notability), be redirected to David Friedman (composer).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely done with the Friedman article. I never did get around to rewriting it, but I like that about Wikipedia - someone like you can pick up where I left off three years ago! Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Pig wrestling'
Hi. The article 'Pig wrestling' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2007/jul/26/greased-pig-scramble-evenings-big-draw/
 * You added this in May 2011.

This link is marked with Dead link in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Uncle G also deserves thanks for his pointing people in the right direction. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Input
You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society.HotHat (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice work. I said in 2010 that "I'm willing to bet that they will be notable" and my crystal ball did me proud. Fences  &amp;  Windows  08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Iomazenil
Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that, in regards to the iomazenil article, its International Nonproprietary Name (INN) is iomazenil (123I), and not simply iomazenil. As per WikiProject Pharmacology (see here, specifically), all drug article titles should be named after their precise INN (if one exists, of course). Furthermore, this style of naming is actually the norm (see here and here for examples; not all of the compounds in these navboxes are named appropriately, but the majority are, and all should be). Please note that the reason for this isn't simply a matter of being pedantic, but that it is because iomazenil and iomazenil (123I) are actually different compounds, both of which it is the goal of Wikipedia to have respective articles for at some point. Hence, would you mind undoing your changes? Thanks! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you had left a message on my talk page before I finished this one. Indeed, it would seem odd to an outside viewer! What happened was I created the page at iomazenil (123I) without realizing that a page for the compound had already been created and was present at iomazenil. Since iomazenil (123I) is the proper name for the compound (in regards to the compound being described I mean), I merged some of the content that was not duplicatory of what I had written from the original iomazenil article to the new one I had written and then I redirected iomazenil to iomazenil (123I). In any case, it was a careless mistake on my part. I probably should have requested a move first and then gone from there. As for the paraphrasing, that only applied to a single, relatively short line. Not to sound antagonistic, but I would hardly call that plagiarism. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would mind. They can be referred to together, a split is totally unnecessary. And please don't rate your own article creations (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iomazenil_%28123I%29&oldid=493587347), that's not very good practice. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Chemicals discourages having a single article for two different compounds. I was not able to find the exact place where this is stated, but here is an excerpt from a talk thread (from here) that demonstrates what I mean:




 * As for rating the importance of the articles I create, I was not aware of that. I actually thought we were supposed to do that. In any case, thanks for letting me know. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in a poor mood, apologies. I don't think they are really different enough to warrant separate articles about both - one is a radiolabelled version of the other. I think that radiolabelling is not really the same as having different side groups, which can effect the function quite a bit more. A split wouldn't help readers as it would fragment the information without aiding understanding. You didn't actually split the articles, you just redirected to another name. If they are split, which I won't dig my heels in about, then let's make sure we don't lose information in the process. One thing that I wasn't happy about was that the new article took what I'd written without attribution but also removed some of the content, e.g. about the use in schizophrenia research, in the process. If you want to expand the article, the MICAD entry is probably good to work from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK23489/ Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas
Just a heads up about this edit from 2010. An editor at Talk:Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to know why I had removed material and references. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BIKESHED. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Rita evacuation image
How did you find http://www.onlyinhouston.org/en/art/151/ ...? Fences &amp;  Windows  23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Goole image search, sorted by size and/or by date. Face-smile.svg  -- Asclepias (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited W H Grindley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grindley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Otciapofa
An article that you have been involved in editing, Otciapofa, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Uyvsdi (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Hi, F&W. I worked with you awhile back on WP:Notability (events). Would you mind taking a look at my edit in Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to see if you think it accurately reflects Wikipedia practice? Thanks! Location (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Uvula
Just so you know, Uvula is pronounced yoo-vyuh-luh making it an exceptional word spelt starting with a vowel. Thus you would write "A uvula piercing". Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanian - Polish editing wars
Hi, I remember once you helped to stop editing war between Lithuanians and Poles and this time I noticed the biggest insolence from that type Polish editors ever. User:Tomasz Wachowski renamed and messing around with article Antanas Baranauskas, where he with no reason renamed Lithuanian poet into Polish version Antoni Baranowski. It should be re-renamed obviously, but I dont want to start another editing war. Can you help me somehow? --Bearas (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Recheck of the Battle of Taku Forts

 * Hi, Mr. Fences. May you fix the grammar and content of the Battle of Taku Forts? I'll gratitude your help.--俠刀行 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge fresher's fair
Hello! I've bid a stall on behalf of the Cambridge University Wikipedia Society at the Cambridge University fresher's fair, 2-3 October. If you are around, it would be great if you can come and help by staffing the stall for a few hours!

The fair will run, roughly, from 9am to 7pm on the 2nd, and 9am to 4pm on the 3rd; details are yet to be confirmed. You certainly won't be expected to stay the whole day unless you really want to! It'll be a sign-up stall for the campus Wikipedia Society, and we'll give out Wikimedia freebies at the event to promote awareness for Wikipedia-editing and Wikimedia UK.

Please contact me if you're interested in helping, even if it's just a few hours. Thanks! (You're receiving this message because you've attended a recent Cambridge meetup - apologies if you aren't around anymore) Deryck C. 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ED close
Can you explain your close then? Silver seren C 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? There's an obvious consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Drop it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how there was an obvious consensus. There were 11 people involved in the discussion, including myself. These were Enric Naval, IanMacM, Conti, Zaiger, 173.219.77.134, BDD, 205.144.73.92, Silver seren, Tarc, 174.253.245.62, and TUXLIE. Of them, Enric Naval was the opener and didn't appear to give any opinion himself. Conti didn't appear to either, but i'm kinda not sure. They were vague and general.


 * So that leaves us with 9. Of them, 3 were IP addresses that were, I assume, canvassed from ED.se and hadn't edited for a significant amount of time before commenting in the discussion.


 * So that leaves us with 6. Of the rest, Zaiger is a known admin/operator/whatever of ED.se, so they have a significant COI in the discussion. Furthermore, Tuxlie is also a member of ED.se, so has a similar COI.


 * So that leaves us with 4. Of those 4, Tarc and IanMacM were for considering it the current ED. I was for changing the article to discuss ED, ED.se, and Oh Internet as a series of wikis. And BDD was for using ED.se in the present tense, such as in the lede, but to have all specific information about the old ED to be in the past tense, as it is a past website.


 * So please explain the consensus to me. Silver  seren C 05:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but the bumpy wheel in your logic parade here is that "involved party == discarded opinion", and I'm afraid it doesn't quite work that way. If one of these ED people had voted "keep for the lulz, hurr hurr" then it'd be weighted next to or at nothing, sure.  But if they are making reasoned input, you cannot just throw away their opinion because of their liking for ED.  If that is the threshold you wish to set, Seren, then we'd have to weigh your opinion less due to your known and plain hatred of ED, particularly because they have an article on you. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that would again fall into the trap that all they have to do is make an article about a person and the person wouldn't be able to be involved in the Wikipedia article anymore. Quite a few ED.se IPs have tried to leverage that spin against me. And, no, Tarc, I don't have a hatred of ED, I have an issue with them trying to push their POV with a very minimal amount of sources to back it up. At this point, neither ED.se or Oh Internet are notable and I don't want to inflate one over the other just because one's users are pushing for it on the talk page.


 * Furthermore, it's quite clear that you're only involved in this discussion because you dislike me. You would have no reason to be here otherwise, as in past ED discussions on WR, you didn't exhibit any positive emotions toward ED. Not to mention that you only became involved in the article after I started posting there.


 * Lastly, I was speaking to Fences and windows, not you. Silver  seren C 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, obviously I do not feel that "article about person == person cannot participate"; the point is, you cannot exclude users from commenting in an RfC just because they happened to be on ED as well. Secondly, I first participated on ED"s talk page on 1 Feb 2011, while you didn't arrive until 20 April 2011, so that kinda pops the tires on that point of yours. :)  Lastly, following a close of any controversial subject matter..RfC, AfD, DRV...I always go check out the talk page of the closer because I know that the QQ isn't far behind.  I a rarely disappointed. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they should be excluded, i'm saying that their relationship to the subject should be taken into question. In this case, when the question is whether their related subject should be given more prominence, of course they're going to say yes. Not to mention that the entirety of Tuxlie's argument, as an example, is "Encyclopedia Dramatica still lives, and it lives at .se." How much weight do you think something like that should be given? Not to mention that two of the IPs commented within just a few short hours of Zaiger commenting, making me concerned about issues of meatpuppetting, especially since such things have been quite prominent in the article's past already.


 * Though I notice now that Fences' close is different than I expected. He went with BDD's route, it appears. Or somewhat, at least. Silver  seren C 22:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Silverseren, you made your opinion clear in the RfC. Your position was not supported by anyone else, and neither did it appear to be convincing. Rather than vote counting, I found that the argument that the .se site is a continuation in fact of Encyclopedia Dramatica to be convincing. Media sources still refer to ED in the present tense, and even link out to the current site. A telling example is this reference referring to "what's left of Encyclopedia Dramatica": ; they appear aware by this statement of the nature of the current site, but still refer to it as Encyclopedia Dramatica. It did appear for a while in 2011 that ED had closed and Oh Internet was its replacement, but the community continued the site despite this. Therefore, our article needs to reflect this reality. As the current site is a continuation of the prior one, it does not need to have independent notability. If you can find someone else other than yourself to cogently argue to the contrary, I'd consider reopening the RfC - but if you're the only one continuing the debate, you should drop the stick. Fences  &amp;  Windows  06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Now that i'm done with tests) Thanks for the extended explanation on your close. That's all I really wanted and if you feel that one argument is stronger than the other, then i'll defer to your decision. I just wanted to make sure you were taking into account all the variables and, seeing that you did, i'm fine with the close. I should note that there was never any stick, just a desire to make sure there weren't any POV/COI changes to the article. And your presented source is very helpful in that regard and, I think, the first time that i've seen ED.se being referred to specifically as a continuation beyond Daily Dot articles. Definitely helpful. Thanks and sorry for taking up your time. Silver  seren C 04:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD is not required for redirects
and would not be allowed for an AfD discussion.  Serendi pod ous  17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You do want to delete the content. You replaced the article with a redirect to an unconnected page, which is de facto deletion. You don't want to merge any content. You need to find somewhere to discuss it - that's AfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The page now has a redirect to 2012 phenomenon, where it is briefly discussed and adequately referenced. Since the only notability that scam has is in its relation to the 2012 phenomenon, now that the date has passed, any further continuance of the article without additional reliable sources (which have never been provided) amounts to Wikipedia publicising a scam. Plus, you were perfectly free to contest the redirect in the week I posted it for discussion.  Serendi pod ous  17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to start an edit war. I will give you a day or two to respond before I revert back.  Serendi pod ous  17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting now! Hold your horses, stop presuming that your merge request is going through. I will start a proper debate on this at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Potentially unreliable sources
Hi - I was having a read of your essay, I think this article could do with a section on who's who scams such as the American Biographical Institute, the International Biographical Centre and many others of the same ilk. Didn't want to make any changes without discussing it with you first - be grateful for your thoughts. nonsense ferret  00:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I added a quick mention. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Hi there You lodged a n merge proposal for Campaign for a Marxist Party a while ago; there has been some support for this, and no objections, so I would suggest if you are still interested to go ahead with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'd forgotten about it. Merged. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Common Sense Party (UK) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Common Sense Party (UK) is 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/Common Sense Party (UK) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOCE invitation
Hi there. I wanted to drop you a note to see if you'd be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive. Three years ago, you participated in our biggest and most successful drive ever and were a big help, copy editing over 10,000 words. We've made lots of progress since then, but have stalled out a bit now. We need more help to keep pushing down the number of articles that still need copy editing. The current drive is already halfway over! Please consider joining it and chipping in a few articles. Thanks for reading this, and I hope to see you there. —Torchiest talkedits 13:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We miss you! Help us out.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Merrells, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boot camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FK Partizan - newest logo PNG.png)
Thanks for uploading File:FK Partizan - newest logo PNG.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you dispute a fair use rationale, discuss it. Removing it and tagging for deletion as unused is very underhand. The logo *has* a rationale for use in that article - please do not remove it again like that. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the "rationale" needs quite a bit of work as it fails WP:NFCC. However when I removed the file it was used on 5 pages, with only the invalid rationale that it still has. I removed it from all articles as they where lacking a valid rationale. No one addressed the rationale issue thus it was tagged as orphan. The text that you are referring to as a rationale:=== Fair use rationale === # Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC. # This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. # The logo is only being used for informational purposes. # This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.  Does nothing to address the requirements required in a valid rationale. Please review WP:NFURG. Werieth (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a club crest used in a page about the club. Of course that is fair use, stop lawyering and start thinking. This is universal on football club pages. If you're that worried about the fair use wording,try that used for the Manchester United F.C. crest. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article Incubator
Template:Article Incubator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List of UK Parties
Hi, I found your page on UK parties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fences_and_windows/UK_parties). It links to a document by the Electoral Commission that is no longer online. Do you have a copy of it that I could access? I'd be happy to reference you in whatever way you prefer. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion1191 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I created that list to show which parties were missing from Wikipedia and might be worth writing an article about; I didn't keep a copy of the source. However, the current site to search all registered and deregistered political parties is https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx - it allows date range searches, so you can easily find the 691 parties that were currently registered or deregistered on 11 February 2009.
 * If you need to, you can reference that old list by using that URL and "(accessed 11 February 2009)". You can access the list from 25 February 2009 via the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20090308165914/http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm? - the drop-down list "Select a party from the list below" shows all the parties registered at the time. The list of deregistered parties as a PDF is on the Internet Archive dated 2 December 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20081206030211/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Childs (murderer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Mirror and Waltham Abbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)