User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 6

Sandra Seacat
thanks for your actions. I really dont understand how this person could be seen as nonnotable, so thanks for making it more clear. Ill put it back on my watchlist for a bit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Hamilton
Thanks! Fences &amp;  Windows  23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will be impressed
I think you will be impressed by the vast improvements in the templates.

See: User:Ikip/2009 September 1  I would list it here, but that messes up the TOC.

Much more work to do. Ikip (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like a challenge!
Don't know if you're looking for a challenging article right now, but Badgujar is about as good as it gets. I also posted a note on WT:INB about this article. It's really in a bad shape and it gets worse every now and then. Might be a good one for you to take your sourcing and writing skills to the extreme. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Hela metal PROD and Rescue
Sorry for mis-using the ARS tag on that page, I had mis-understood the PROD process but have now educated myself. However, the next day it was put into AfD, so I presume it's now appropriate to have re-added the tag? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is kind of complicated! Yes, now that it is at AfD, the rescue tag is entirely appropriate. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Digimon cast members deprod
Hey Fences and windows (nice username! ^_^ ), I noticed that you deprodded List of Digimon cast members with the edit summary "Deprod, article seems like a good idea to me, and shouldn't go without a fight." I can certainly understand why you'd think that, but it's been generally agreed for a while now that cast/voice actor lists are redundant to series and character articles, and cannot provide the same type of context that the larger-scope articles can. In addition, these lists tend to be indiscriminate, with users listing every small role they see in the credits of the show in question. This has been upheld by several PRODs and AFD discussions in the past, many of which are archived at WP:ANIME/DA. If you don't mind or have any further objections, then, I'd like to send this list to AFD. Thanks! 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can see both sides of the argument, I'm happy for an AfD to decide it. I have no particular love of Digimon! Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * &rarr; Articles for deletion/List of Digimon cast members Cheers! 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Odunisis
Yes, it's disturbing how bad some of the orphaned articles nobody has noticed are. That one apparently even made it into a print Wikipedia fork, I guess because of its venerability:

How to die hair with kool-aid
Yeah I'm English :), never heard of this. So to me it looked like it was just "use kool-aid, it dies your hair well". - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research, verification, truth DJs and sisters...
Those AFDs have shown up one of the holes that sometimes appears on wikipedia, it's very very obvious, this is the same person, we know that to be 'true' but of course, we need verification, but the sources are do poor, we cannot do that - yet we will more than likely still have one of the articles (sigh..). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR? I think there's enough connections between Holmann+DJ Pusspuss, Holmann+Sister Kitty, and Dj Pusspuss+Sister Kitty to make the identity of the three obvious to a reasonable editor, and we only do a disservice to the reader by keeping up the pretense.
 * As an aside, if a Wikipedia editor is concerned about their real-life privacy they should be careful about their choice of username and what articles they edit. At least one other Wikipedian worked out who I am in real-life. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that my research was useful :-) I was pretty much squashed in my AFD.Legionarius (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Warrior 4321  22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy Pop quiz to Wiktionary
I have replaced the dated PROD tag that you placed on Pop quiz with a Copy to Wikitionary tag so that the information can be automatically copied. While the US, education-related defintion is already there, the British music-related one is not. After the material is copied, the page should feature a soft redirect, as you suggested. Cnilep (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered about doing that, but figured the use of pop quiz as "a quiz about pop music" was kind of obvious. Cool. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

talkback
Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron Ikip (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, Ben was calling for my block about a year and a half ago when we first met, and I have tried to build a good relationship since then that would be very unwise. Ikip (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, your choice, but ARS isn't his fiefdom. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to hold off on this for now, thanks for your comments :) Ikip (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contacting deletion nominators

 * from user:ikip

I'm still concerned at your approach to deletion discussions. By asking nominators to instead redirect, you are in effect depriving editors of the chance to demonstrate notability at the AfD. By arguing for a merge, you may be unnecessarily forcing subjects together when they are actually independently notable. Nominators may go along with your suggestion as redirects and some merges can effectively amount to deletion. If the nominator does withdraw their nomination before any !votes are cast and does merge or redirect, any editor will be entitled to revert them, which might lead to edit warring; we'll be back to square one, which is why it is good is discuss the options. I appreciate the sentiment behind what you are doing, but it seems like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted - someone wants to delete the page, and others might want to keep it, and we need to resolve that potential dispute. You are also seem to be assuming that your suggestion made to the nominator is the best course of action, which is quite unilateral. Exactly what is it that you do want to achieve? Are there other alternatives that we can think of that will move towards what you want to achieve? Getting nominators to follow WP:BEFORE might help, so an RfC to consider upgrading it to policy could be an option. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will respond in detail later, thank you. Ikip (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyday over 100 articles are put up for deletion. Unfortunately none of us can police 100 articles a day, nor does anyone seem to have the desire too.


 * About 73% are deleted, that means 73 articles are deleted everyday. Most, should, in fact be deleted, becasue they have no notability. But there is a sizable minority, which we miss.


 * Redirecting is much better than deleting because the article history is retained. Any editor can later return to this page and remove the redirect and continue to build the article, adding better sources. Whereas if the article is deleted, the only way to see it is by userfication, which most editors are not aware of.


 * Also redirecting lowers the number of articles which ARS must patrol. I suspect if I were to ask all 100 editors, about 40% would allow me to redirect, that is only 60 articles left to patrol.


 * I have done this in about 10 cases, 3 editors refused, the other 7 allowed me to redirect, in one case, an editor who had worked on the article removed the redirect and continued the AFD.


 * This is a poor solution to a terrible problem. My views on everything has softened the more I have been involved in the squad. While I once called redirecting "burying" I now accept it as a viable alternative to avoid controversy and deletion. Ikip (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One more important vital point: Many of these nominators don't know that there are other options available.  My first try at this, with Dentist chair the nominator did not know that redirects were even available. Now this editor will always think first, can this be redirected? Before putting an article up for deletion. The majority of the !votes in AFDs never mention merge/redirect/userfy. By offering this to editors, I am teaching and reminding other editors  that there are options out there. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and for taking my note as intended, which is as a friendly critique. Is your approach a type of mergism?
 * I'm not sure that Dentist chair is a great redirect, as dentist chairs are only mentioned once in a figure caption in Dentistry; the reader looking for dentist chairs will learn nothing about them and the lack of a redlink now misleadingly suggests that Wikipedia includes information on the topic when it does not. The article was a microstub imparting no information, so if nobody is going to expand it deletion is not unreasonable, as anyone looking for dentist chairs in the absence of the article will quickly find the article on dentistry, as they'd automatically see this search page. An alternative to deletion is finding a reference to dentist chairs to support a minimal stub, and to add in wikilinks to it from other articles - especially Dentistry or Barber chair as a see also - so that it can then be expanded, or else merge in the microstub into Dentistry, to be spun back out if it expands enough. Barber chair is also a microstub, btw.
 * Newbies who think that adding some crap off the top of their head is a good way to contribute to an encyclopedia are as much the problem as is overzealous deletion!
 * I agree that nominators need educating; reaching for the nuclear option is far too easy. Could you remind nominators about the other options to deletion and note this in the AfD without trying to bounce the nominator into your chosen option, or do you think this would be ineffective as your sensible solution would be ignored by deletionists at AfD? It seems that what you're doing is a reaction to the broken nature of the deletion process. I think more effort needs to be put into making deletion nominators follow WP:BEFORE and into drawing attention to deletion discussions. I suggested some possible remedies in a discussion on relisting, which is a symptom of a lack of participation at AfD, and you were the only one to notice; could I get your further thoughts on them?
 * More automatic notifications of article creators and significant contributors. I know ErwinBot contacts people if they're made 5+ non-minor edits; perhaps that could be adjusted to widen the notifications, perhaps based on characters contributed to the current article?
 * The bot is broken, I don't know how it works, but it isn't working well. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Add an option on your Watchlist to see all current AfDs and prods flagged up for every article you've edited, in case you miss the nomination. Could also do this for RfCs etc.
 * This requires arguing in an AFD. I would like to avoid this personally, leaving this to other editors. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More listing on Deletion sorting pages, which surely could be automated by bots if it isn't already. Every AfD should be in at least one category.
 * This requires arguing in an AFD. I would like to avoid this personally, leaving this to other editors. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greater prominence of articles up for deletion on WikiProject pages.
 * This is something out of my scope, but I encourage it. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If an article links to or is linked from an article that is up for deletion, a note at the top of the talk page could flag this up.
 * I am actively working on something similar to this with TodWulff, who is building the autohotkey script. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a bot like SuggestBot that lists AfDs you might be interested in on your talk page every 5 days.
 * Excellent suggestion, why not float it at ARS? Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a list of the 5 latest AfD nominations on the Wikipedia homepage.
 * I doubt the powers that be would agree, but float it first at ARS. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  14:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I'm going to see if the University of Central England can send me a copy of this dissertation: HEAD, Kirsty Miles, 'History of the dental chair', 1994 (MA). Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Fences, thank you for your comments. I am glad we are thinking on the same page. Let me consider my response first, so this is not a long stream of conscious response, which some editors are guilty of all too often (I am in no way implying your wonderful comments are this). I appreciate your wonderful ideas.
 * I have no doubt that dental chair is notable. I just wasn't the editor to make it notable. Undoing the redirect would be easy, but I suggest creating an article first in userspace, then moving that userspace article to dental chair, since the nominator has the article probably watch listed, and may put it up for deletion immediately as you start working on it. Ikip (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: Could you remind nominators about the other options to deletion and note this in the AfD without trying to bounce the nominator into your chosen option, or do you think this would be ineffective as your sensible solution would be ignored by deletionists at AfD?
 * User:ikip/u are the messages I send out. I think the very suggestion to redirect/userfy is a reminder that other options exist.
 * Userfying is my preferred option, if you can come up with a convincing argument to get editors to userfy, I will test it and use it. So far I have an estimated 70% sucess rate, which I know can't be sustained, but which is promising.
 * Would you consider refactoring your comments about this on WP:AFD? Ikip (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

<-Outdent.
 * My comments may be a bit stream of consciousness! I'm not sure what I need to refactor at WP:AFD. I understand better what your aim is, but for instance I'd have rather seen a deletion discussion for Dentist chair than a redirect. Your observation that you weren't the editor to write about dentists' chairs illustrates why a deletion discussion could be useful; someone else reading the discussion might be the editor to do so. Look at Hell, Arizona for an example. It was a probable hoax as nobody could find a ghost town by that name, but Uncle G used sources that had been uncovered to demonstrate the hoax to rewrite the article to be on the topic of places called "Hell" in Arizona, after noting that there are more of them in Arizona than anywhere else in the world. This wouldn't have happened if the article had simply been redirected to Arizona or Ghost town. Or Liahavichy Castle could have been redirected to Lyakhavichy, so I'd have never written that article. I will make some additional comments at the AFD talk page and consider if I should reword.
 * Despite me being a bit bitey over this, your approach of just getting on and doing something is better than sitting back and talking about it, as I tend to do. I will think if I have any suggestions to make for the messages at User:Ikip/u; they could be suitable eventually for standard messages to be linked to from WP:AFD. When the WP:INCUBATOR is up-and-running this could be included as an option in such a message as an alternative to userfying. Userfying might not be successful if the article creator lacks the competence, persistence or awareness to write a policy-compliant article, so a central approach such as the Incubator may be better. The Incubator could also tag articles in user space to make a wider number of editors aware of them.
 * I'm going to look at adding some content to the History section of the Dentistry article rather than reverting the redirect, which will make the redirect appropriate. Reverting would be utterly pointless. I have contacted a librarian at Birmingham City University to see if they've got that dissertation and I've found some other snippets of information about the history of dental chairs. One of the useful things that a deletion discussion can do is to demonstrate where we've got a hole in our coverage - I find some prods do this quite well.
 * I have dropped a note to the creator of Barber chair to ask them why they started it with effectively no content and no references, and asking them not to do so in the future; they're no newbie, they've been editing for 3 years and they've been asked about similar article creations before. I can see why editors turn deletionist when articles are created with such a lack of thought or effort. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFDs bring attention to an article which otherwise would get none. I respect your opinion on this, and I can see your point. Once we have the Incubator up and running, we can just redirect/userfy the articles there. I loved your points about this. I totally agree with your ideas, and your points give me A LOT of pause. For every Hell, Arizona I think there are a lot of articles which never get the attention they deserve. There are just way to many.
 * I am SO ecstatic. Soon we will all have a way to look at all of the google scholar, book, and news links without every leaving wikipedia. User:TodWulff is so dedicated to this.
 * But this, unfortunately will not stem the tide of articles which are put up for deletion. I just wrote a note to Article_wizard2.0/Userfeedback ANYONE can userfy a page. I don't think I can convince the new page patrollers to stop deleting the pages, (doesn't hurt to ask) but maybe I can start userfying those pages myself. Leaving a short note on new editors pages about what I did and why.
 * See my bot suggestions on WT:ARS. Ikip (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A project you might be interested in
 * From user ikip:

I just came across WikiProject Integration. Fences &amp;  Windows  18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you. :) Right now I am concerned with merging/redirecting as it only applies to AFDs, but I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I will watch list this and use it later. Ikip (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can tell them what I have been doing recently. Ikip (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Help
Okay, I know it's rude to inturrupt you're discussion, but I need help I don't know how to post on message on your talk page, so help! Or am I doing it now? Also, I need help on other things. [ [ Baclguitar316] ] Date- 9-12-09 P.S. Thanks for the cookies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackguitar316 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator
If GB or fritz give me the okay, I will start adding articles today. Ikip (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I contacted a select few of the ARSify editors. I was concerned how Colonel warden and Ben opposed this before. Ikip (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would give you another barnstar for the WP:CRYSTAL idea, but I just gave you a barnstar yesterday, so that would be too presumptuous. Maybe tomorrow :) Ikip (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I come up with random ideas all the time, but it doesn't mean I'll ever actually follow through on them so please no barnstar!
 * I think the opposition to ARSify was to do with not wanting to widen the scope of the ARS, which is deliberately focussed on brinkmanship editing to remain managable and coherent. ARSify was a good idea of JClemens, but it came at the wrong time as ARS was at MfD at the time. Anything that might give editors more reasons to beat the ARS with sticks was distinctly unwelcome! Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: Gee...that's just the kind of constructive criticism that we need! I'm so glad that you're working hard to make Wikipedia a friendly and collaborative environment. If you don't have anything good to say, then best say nothing at all. Some of us actually like working to improve articles, rather than just "nuking them from space".
 * The more I get to know you, the more I like you. LOL. Ikip (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord almighty. I just ask Fritz when is everyone going to stop talking, and start doing. He said vaguely "ASAP". Ikip (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi - just so you know, I intended no criticism of you here or here;you are in fact one of the (very) few Article Rescue Squadron members who actually does any article rescuing by sourcing and improving the sourceable and improvable without arguing in favour of articles which are irredeemable. I thought I'd say that here as the 'fancruft' thread at Ars talk has shifted off-topic somewhat. pablo hablo. 08:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not an inclusionist; WP:GNG is my main guide, with a little common sense thrown in.
 * Pointing out my own use of potentially inflammatory or insulting language was perfectly fair! I've called articles "irredeemable trainwrecks" before, which is equally as insulting as "fancruft". I suppose my point is that if we can avoid using a term that is seen as offensive by using an alternative, it's a good idea to do so. So rather than "Delete, NN, fancruft", an argument would go "Delete, the subject hasn't been covered indepth by any reliable sources that I can find, and the article contains far too many unsourced and unnecessary details". Same meaning, different approach. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Leo Alexander (politician)
Hello Fences and windows, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Leo Alexander (politician) has been removed. It was removed by Dc archivist with the following edit summary ' (Added Official News Coverage) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dc archivist before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Sorry.

 * Thanks, expanding articles can be very rewarding! If you ever want help in sourcing for an article, I'll be happy to take a look. I've still got some of those articles on my to-do list to knock into shape. Btw, you may be interested in the Article Incubator, which is intended to be a place to send articles at risk of deletion so they can be worked on outside the main encyclopedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yashwant Sena
Can you take a look? I PRODded and it was dePRODded with one ref that is actually from a Wikipedia mirror. I was able to find one trivial mention in English and four in Hindi/Marathi reliable sources, nothing else at all. If you can't find any, I'll probably take to AfD. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Telomere t-loop deletions
Hello F&W. Would you mind having a look at the above entry? I've nominated it for speedy deletion, since it's a repost of the entry that was recently deleted as per the discussion here and of a related entry that had popped up shortly afterwards and you had nominated for speedy deletion. Since this latest incarnation is still there, I'm now wondering whether it fell through the cracks somewhere. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Stoyanov can't take no for an answer, and resorts to sockpuppetry. Speedy deletion is quite correct. I'll search for more versions, and report this latest sockpuppet. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Farm School
Hi. Thanks for removing all those empty sections (for trivial topics, even!) and trivia from The Farm School.

However, I think the merger into The Farm (Tennessee) should not be done without discussion, so I restored the last pre-merger version of the article. It's not at all obvious to me that the school operated by a hippie commune that has existed for nearly 40 years is non-notable. Furthermore, note that schools that incorporate a high school are generally presumed to be notable. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked for sources and couldn't find multiple examples of significant coverage, so figured a merge into the community article was best, as it's intrinsically linked to The Farm. When I merged I added a source which was removed in the revert, so I'm adding that back. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it probably should be kept, but I haven't commented yet. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lamia (Vampire Folk lore)
Hello! You seem like a reasonable fellow. Might you reconsider giving this one a chance, at least for the purpose of merging? I am in the process of rewriting it to be about more than just the one book per. Please also note that they also appear in numerous published encyclopedias in the specific context of vampire folklore. Thanks for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... there's already a page on the actual mythology of Lamia, rather than the Night Watch book, so rewriting will just create a content fork. As for general Vampire folk lore, we already have Vampire and the more detailed Vampire folklore by region, and for recent book, film, and TV appearances we have Vampires in popular culture. I don't see the point of having an article here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to beg, but would you please consider at least a merge of newly sourced content and a redirect? Thanks.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to beg: please, please, please stop this kind of indiscriminate inclusionism. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Inline citation WITH an exteranl link
I do not agree with your assesment about wikipedia allowing references hidden behind pay walls. Varifiability is a standard that does not require payment. If a source (such as a map) has to be purchased that is what is covered by what you claimed, however an inline citation to a web page is an external link and does qualify to be deleted. If I buy a book that is not available in a library free, that does not exclude it from being used as a reference, but if an inline citation requires a link, (citing the web) then yes, it must be a varifiable link that does not require registration or payment.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. WP:ELs are not the same as references. See EL. There is nothing in policy about references needing to be free, though we'd obviously prefer free sources. See Citing sources and Verifiability. If you want to change policy then argue for your position on the appropriate talk pages, but you're in a tiny minority. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Darn it. I just lost everything I just wrote due to an edit conflict. Anyway in a nut shell you are correct, but let us not be too stern about this as it is only a guideline which gives room to gain a consensus to exlude such references. Sisnce it is not a brightline rule or strict Wikipedia policy I think I see why there has been confusion on this from me. Thanks. In the future when it comes to references, it may be safer to discuss first and act later. I am trying but sometimes things seem more cut and dry than they really are.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:VAND#NOT
Please note that under no circumstances can this edit be considered vandalism. There is a current discussion started by that editor about the source where the editor acknowledged their error and sought to self revert. Did you make a mistake in reverting that edit and marking it as vandalism? Protonk (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a mistake. I hit the wrong button. I'll apologise to Amadscientist. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, problem.....I hadn't actually noticed the summery.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
Sorry to see you go. That doesn't mean we cant still work together. I refactored out that comment. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will still look in on articles on the list and rescue them if I can and should, but ARS isn't working well. It's a great idea, but it's abused by article creators, there's far too many fictional elements added, and it's too inclusionist. I've turned off AfD in general, it's not the place for a WikiSloth. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a wikisloth? Ikip (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This! Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the Wikipedia:WikiSloth article! You opened up a whole new list of articles for me! thanks! I think I got the essence of the wikisloth mantra in this one-of-a-kind-award/good bye gift:

RFC/U
You have been mentioned a few times here and may wish to comment. pablo hablo. 08:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Someone has spent a lot of time trawling through old diffs! Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3-4 years, I think. pablo hablo. 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CPGB-ML
Hey, what's wrong with a bigger picture? Mickeylove73 (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership
As I've said several times before, and as you probably remember, being an ARS member doesn't make one an actual article rescuer, and not being an ARS member doesn't make one not an article rescuer. Being an article rescuer is defined by actions, not signatures. So, from someone who has never signed up for ARS membership, but who has been an actual article rescuer for years: keep up those actions. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wise words as ever! The ARS has promise, but at the moment I don't think it is doing it's supposed job. It is meant to find articles on topics that are rescuable and also need rescue work, but many articles tagged for rescue don't have an issue with sourcing or else are never going to have sources found. Without some kind of filter or ranking system, it doesn't work. The lack of discrimination of a handful of members makes it more a tool for vote packing than a way to focus rescue efforts. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The tagging more in hope than in knowledge is sometimes a problem, I grant you. But we can always do things the old-fashioned way.  What say you to an article on mail trucks (AFD discussion) a.k.a. mail vans (not to be confused, of course with mail cars and mail coaches)? Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your comment at AN's RFC
Hiya, I noticed your comment and see that you mention me. The point of those diffs being a part of the case isn't the content or the fact that he uses them, but the time that has passed. He frequently drags up diffs from 2 years ago. I don't even particularly care that he does that, as it makes him look foolish and petty, but I did want to make sure that you understand why they are mentioned. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add here, because I don't think it is important enough to drop in the talk page, but your comment confused me a bit. I get the criticism that we shouldn't call out A-N for using old diffs to discredit opponents while using old diffs (and for the moment I'll set aside that this charge isn't true), but how can you follow up by saying "...so if editors like DoctorFluffy don't want old comments used against them they shouldn't make those kinds of comments."? I mean, either Doctorfluffy has to remain on guard for two year old comments and so does AN or neither do. I can't imagine a coherent argument for why Doctorfluffy would have to defend 2 year old comments but AN would not. I'm not trying to hassle you, just offering a mild response. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't mind you commenting on my statements! There's an irony in criticising A Nobody for raising old comments while presenting old comments as evidence. That's my point. Indeed we're all open to criticism for past actions and statements, but also we shouldn't bear grudges lasting years, especially if the behaviour of the editor has changed or they have recanted their statements. Current editing is the real issue.
 * I think a problem with the RfC is it is very tl;dr, and has the appearance of an attempt to dig up so much potential dirt that some of it will stick; I know that wasn't the intent. For instance, A Nobody is hardly the only editor to badger !voters at AfD; this is common among deletionists. Tit-for-tat behaviour is not the problem of only one individual. A Nobody has current behavioural issues that they need to address, in particular ill-considered attempts to force keeps by using merges and a lack of civility to those on the deletionist end of the spectrum. It would have been better, in my view, to concentrate on those issues.
 * The context of the A Nobody's behaviour and the RfC is the inclusionist-deletionist war. A Nobody may fall, but sadly another will take their place! If we don't fix the problems with the deletion process, the war will continue unabated. I see the problems as too little work being put into finding good sources, by nominators, delete and keep voters, a failure to consider alternatives to deletion such as merges or widening the scope of the article before nomination, and too little reasoned debate. There is far too much VAGUEWAVE and ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first part of you comment, there is a difference between using old comments to illustrate a pattern of disruptive behavior for something like an RFC, and dredging up diffs from years ago simply because he doesn't agree with someone in an AFD discussion and he can't think of a real rebuttal. The former is appropriate (in fact, that's the point of the RFC) whereas the latter is obviously intended to annoy and frustrate.
 * Regarding the tl;dr-ness and context, it's important to understand that this is an on-going issue, spanning years. It's not like they had to dig around very long for these examples. The RFC could be ten times as long. I personally could find dozens of diffs showing his behavioral problems. We should try to keep that in perspective, keep the focus on his behavior, and not turn the RFC into a debate about the faults of AFD. Besides, he is probably the most controversial editor who frequents AFD, so by focusing on his behavior we are actually refining the AFD process itself. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't want A Nobody to "fall". Despite my immense frustration with him (expressed in a pretty uncivil fashion on my part on more than one occasion) I don't think that wikipedia would be better off if everyone who had his view on AfD stopped participating.  I don't think every article sent to AfD should be deleted and there are plenty where he has brought up sources or noted problems with nominations that were absolutely correct.  My hope is that he (and others) can do that without all the baggage.  That we can get dispute without war.  I may be in for a rough ride, but that is my overall intent with the RfC.  I wanted to establish a clear pattern of behavior which is damaging to the community and hope that we can recognize it and get AN to correct it.  To that end nihilism really worries me.  We have a habit of discussing AfD like the participants in it are deprived of agency.  We talk about notability breeding conflict or AfD causing the acrimony.  There is a lot of truth behind the assertion that boundary maintenance is most acrimonious over small internal divisions (A point noted in Cyberchiefs, though not in the chapter on Wikipedia).  There is truth to the assertion that structure has a big impact on action.  But I don't think it is right to throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done.  There are dozens of people participating in AfD every day who don't view it as a battle of world-historical importance.  What do those people do that some others do not?  Can we steer someone whose conduct is making that environment worse away from that sort of conduct?
 * In order to ask that question we need to establish that someone (AN, in this case) is making the environment of AfD worse overall. That requires a great deal of evidence, collected over a great deal of time.  Dr. Fluffy is absolutely right that this RfC is a sample of problematic comments from a larger population.  It might not be 1/10th its possible size but it is at least 1/4th its possible size. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (butting in, but not wanting to sidetrack) That's an interesting point about agency; now I think about it, it is perhaps true that people see behaviour as being driven by the environment of (for example) AfD, rather than the environment being created by the behaviour. Butting out. pablo hablo. 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "We have a habit of discussing AfD like the participants in it are deprived of agency". Eh? Wikipedia editors are thinking beings, you say? Of course you're right, bad behaviour needs to be challenged. I don't question raising an RfC for A Nobody, despite my comments and caveats. They drive me up the wall.
 * I do sometimes want to throw up my hands to AfD, but we don't need to. Extending the time has probably already helped. As well as somehow getting everyone to read the article, look for sources and discuss the article instead of doing pile-on voting, we need to get more eyes on deletion discussions, which can be done in a number of ways, including:
 * Automatic deletion sorting.
 * Add an option to Watchlists to see all current AfDs and prods flagged up for every article you've edited, in case you miss the nomination. Could also do this for RfCs etc.
 * Greater prominence of articles up for deletion on WikiProject pages.
 * If an article links to or is linked from an article that is up for deletion, a note at the top of the talk page could flag this up. TodWulff and Ikip are thinking of something like this.
 * Have a bot like SuggestBot that lists AfDs you might be interested in on your talk page every 5 days or so.
 * Have a list of the 5 latest AfD nominations on the Wikipedia homepage; might be controversial...
 * I'd also like to see WP:BEFORE upgraded to a guideline or policy so that nominators take it seriously, and can even be sanctioned for repeatedly ignoring it, as I don't think it is nearly as onerous as has been made out by some. This has been suggested but is languishing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those discussions need to happen on their merits (FWIW I would approve of some and would disapprove or have disapproved of others). Protonk (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
I sent you an e-mail. pablo hablo. 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shona Holmes
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shona Holmes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I'm relisting this article and you participated in the first discussion so I'm contacting you if you want to be apart of this discussion. Fire 55 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be going into more detail in a few min. --Fire 55 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cherry
Re: your message -

I asked a question on the talk page of Cherry St. Tavern. Please feel free to retort on the same talk page. That's actually the reason talk pages exist. I elected to post that question rather than automatically delete. Fair enough? Is there a response to the question I posed? Thanks... Etrangere (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be patronising and confrontational. I'm not interested in talking with you unless you can be civil. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

reply
I am sorry you saw my comment as ad hominen. Please bear in mind I did raise the issue of the other equally appropriate related articles that could be the target of a merge in the first afd -- without, IMO, getting a serious reply.

You said you saw Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States as an adequate substitute for a Shona Holmes article. Can I ask how close a look you took at our nominator's cut and paste? As I noted in the afd one of the regular contributors to Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States removed everything but the Democrats Abroad reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw it the section was intact. I suggested a merge at the first AfD too, and seeing a section in an appropriate place this time I saw no need for the article. If it was indeed a cut-and-paste then that's a no-no. If Shona Holmes is so unimportant that her case doesn't warrant a section in the healthcare reform debate article, doesn't that argue against the need for a whole article about her? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, a cut and past so careless he or she didn't even bother to remove the reflist, just pasted it in with everything else -- and without leaving a note on the talk page stating its source -- which is a violation of the remaining rights the original contributors (mainly me) retain under the gfdl to have our intellectual contributions properly credited to us.


 * Does the opinion of one (so far) contributor to that article, that the Shona Holmes incident doesn't deserve a paragraph sized section in that article mean she doesn't merit an article? I don't think he or she said that.  From his or her comments on the talk page I would be surprised if they took that position.  Other contributors to that article may agree that she does merit a couple of sentences, or a paragraph.


 * Don't forget that this was the position of someone contributing to an article on American health care reform. Although no one paid to have her ad broadcast, as an ad, in Canada, it has been widely broadcast, as a news item, and has triggered a wide debate, across Canada.


 * Her court case will set a very significant precedent, one way or another, for the the Ontario health care system. Her case is the first challenge of its kind in Ontario.  The long term financial consequences of that decision will run into tens, hundreds, possibly billions of dollars.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Signature
Love the new signature. Not sure when you put it in, but I don't recall seeing it before this month. Great colors. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta. It does make it easier to find my comments on talk pages! I can't remember how long it's been since I changed it, a couple of months. Totally stolen from the spine of the book, which was also a take off of the cover of No Logo. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Diller
Please explain your recent edit to Hans Diller. As you may have noticed, the edit was introduced after a week of talk page discussion. What is your problem with the source? A picture of the actual graffiti seems like a good source to me. Probably you did not check the source. --Law Lord (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please observe that I was not banned from deWiki for my single edit to Hans Diller. I was banned for pointing out that an administrator should not make fun of French speaking people. I kindly ask you to observe this, and perhaps in the future contact me in private if you want to discuss such matters. As I am sure you can appreciate, some people do not like being banned on Wikipedia projects; even when we all know that certain projects (like deWiki) have unfit administrators. That being said, I will keep my hands off Hans Diller until a resolution is reached. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to contact you in private? You've posted about it all over Wikipedia Review so it's hardly a secret. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you seem to have difficulty understanding the reason for this particular deWiki block, it would make a lot of sense to contact involved parties in private so you do not risk writing something factually incorrect in public. What is posted on Wikipedia Review has no bearing on what is sound or even acceptable behaviour on enWiki. --Law Lord (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have trouble understanding that dick jokes aren't suitable content for encyclopedias. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are unable to fathom that a translation is not a joke. Just stay away from me, as you are behaving in a most unpleasant manner towards me, and I see no chance of a change in that. --Law Lord (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoax tags
I've replied to your comments at the Fuente Magna AfD - Piltdown Man does have a hoax tag, hoax tags aren't reserved for Wikipedia editor's articles. I've also commented on your mention of the book. (please don't take any offence at any of my comments)Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no offense taken at all. I was fully aware that the sources were incredibly weak; that was me thoroughly scraping the barrel. I think you're confusing hoax categories with the hoax template. Of course proven but notable hoaxes can be categorised as hoaxes, but the hoax template refers to the content guideline, Do not create hoaxes. is not for articles about hoaxes.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

breaking the vicious circle
It was good to see a strong voice for mutual respect on the Anobody RfC. Re the S Marshal idea, it might be challenging to achieve concensus for a substational change to AfD, but maybe we could get a little essay promoted that emphasises the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views. Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs. AfD is not a war zone - FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks!! Perhaps its just me but it reads better than some of the policy class docs now! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * i thought i was good but you're much better at this than me. If you want to move it into your user space please do. Im going offline now, but if and when you feel its the right time then if you want to please socialise it further at the RfC or where ever. I think it would have a better chance of being accepted comming from you. I feel really sure the essay could do some real good if it starts getting refered to at AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy working on it in your userspace, it was your good idea after all, and I'm building on your work. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for trying to explain why simple cut and paste doesn't comply with policy. I am sure a heads-up from you would be more likely to be well received than a heads-up from me.

Thanks for your note on my talk page. The law can be funny -- can be shockingly counter-intuitive. Quebec, one of the other nine provinces, did have a similar challenge, and the Quebec courts ruled against the Province, and in favor of the patients, setting a precedent for any other Quebecers who wants to try to get premium care in the US.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

General Webb
Well done - wikipedia at its best! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

War on Explosions
Given your comment at Articles for deletion/Exploding tree, I suggest that you comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTNEWS
I responded in detail underneath the message you left me, but basically, yes I would be willing to try. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge OOPart
If you add a "merge" template with a link to another talk page, you should start a discussion on that talk page. Right now following the link leads to discussions that have nothing to do with the merge proposal, which is confusing (and won't rather much consensus, either way). There should also be a merge template on "pseudoarchaeology" leading to the same discussion, so folks there can weigh in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or you could've fixed it yourself... Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Brokencyde
Hi! I wanted to extend the courtesy of letting you know about a few edits I revised on the Brokencyde article. With community support, the article was completely re-written to be more objective, due to significant concerns from many members of the community that the article had been hi-jacked by two camps, one adding fan information without sources, and the other trying to deliberately bash the band. Compromises were reached, allowing most of the maintenance templates (like "biased", "not neutral", "unsourced", etc) to be removed from the article.

So with the contentious background in mind, I've consolidated the critical reception quotes into a more manageable section:
 * I chose the quote by the British politician for deletion, since politicians aren't known to be experts on music, and mostly because it didn't really impart any useful new information. I also removed the mtv.com quote, because again, the quote seemed to reflect more on the fans of the band, than the band itself, although who can argue with his logic?

I kept the additional quote from the Los Angeles Times (but consolidated the paragraph for cohesion), as well as the quote from NME, since both are notable publications, and mention the music rather than the culture of the band. I think this helps to balance out some of the more outrageous comments being leveled at the article (perhaps rightly so, I listened to the band on youtube, and oh, boy...) by just keeping focus on notable reviews of the music. Vandalism is at an all time low lately, because I think we struck the right wording to allow people to "see what they want", both pro and against, while not having the article look like a hit piece.

I am of the opinion that critical reviews from 5 notable sources are plenty for a band that has only had 1 major release. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on the matter. Best regards, and thanks for all your help. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yiddish as German Language
Hi,

You added Yiddish to the list of German languages about half year ago. I'm not sure whether it's the right definition because it also include many words in Hebrew and later adopted words from Slavic languages. I think that Yiddish vocabulary mainly include German words, but I'm not sure that this majority is notable to that extent it would considerd as German language.--Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know some people don't like saying Yiddish is Germanic - what with the Nazis being German and trying to wipe out the Jewish people - but it does in a large part derive from Middle High German. English is also Germanic, but contains a lot of words from Romance languages and others; it's the derivation and grammatical structure that define language groups, not vocab. And anecdotally, I learned German at school and can just about follow spoken Yiddish. I will look for academic sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See:. It's definitely considered to be Germanic, but it's not German, or a dialect of German - it is a fusion, just like English is.
 * Outside scholarly circles, the Jerusalem Post says "Yiddish, a Germanic language written in Hebrew", NYT says "Yiddish is a Germanic language that developed as the lingua franca of the Ashkenazic Jewry by incorporating Hebrew and borrowing liberally from the different European lands where Jews lived.", and "In the early 20th century, linguists found evidence that Yiddish and modern German were of equal stature -- parallel offshoots of the same Germanic mother tongue... After the horrors of World War II, some Jewish scholars set out to distance Yiddish from German and show that it was a unique cultural creation of the Jews".. LA Times: "Yiddish, the Germanic language that was common among Eastern European Jews before World War II", USA Today: "Yiddish, a Germanic language written in Hebrew, was spoken by about 11 million Jews in Eastern Europe, North America and elsewhere". Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about the history of Jews and Germans and I know well that English is part of the German languages family. Infact, there are so many similarities between English and German and mostly only the pronunciation is different (Flesh and Fleisch, Water and Wasser and thousnds of other examples) and that during the regime of Rome on the British tribes (many of those were of German origin) many Latin words have found their way to English, but yet English is much more similar to German than to Spanish. I know it well because I know Spanish and as German and Yiddish are both not strange to my ears. Linguistically Yiddish is most similar to German but my question is whether it's also considerd as German language by linguistics?--Gilisa (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * German language =/= Germanic language. Yiddish is considered to be a Germanic language linguistically. p.s. There's a lot of major differences between modern English and modern German other than pronunciation! Cases, genders, word order, adjective endings, vocabulary, accents. The closest extant language to English other than the Scots language is probably Frisian. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it well, German is a much harder language to learn than English in many essences and contain endless exeptionall cases. However, as my native tongue is Hebrew it's probably easier for me to see the similarties..Thanks anyway.--Gilisa (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully English has shed most of those arcane grammatical rules; the main problem with English is it is terribly irregular. Of course there are a lot of similarities between German and English, but they aren't mutually intelligible at all, unlike Spanish and Portuguese, Romanian and Italian, or Swedish and Norwegian, for instance. German and English share the same basic root, but they have developed separately as languages for about 1,500 years. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, your'e right. What's so frustrating about English is that if you are not a native speaker, or at least learend it at very young age, you will get hard time to get to closer level with native speaker of English. It may be much easier for people whose native tongue is German, Dutch, some Scandinavian languages (except for Finnish) and etc-but for me at the least it's not come naturaly (but I must say that during the last years I didn't have many opportunities to practice it extensively). The English vocabulary is huge, not once there are 100 different words for the very same object with most cases it's unnecessary (probably it's related to the expansions of the British empire). I realy think that German and English are among the hardest languges to take control of. Spanise on the other hand, is very friendly..--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationales
There's a lot of discussion of what "the participants in the prior AFD discussion" meant. As one of the actual participants in that first AFD discussion, perhaps you would like to visit the second AFD discussion to make it clear what your view was, and is now. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm really bloody annoyed with that 'closure'. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)