User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 14

Please use this to leave me a new message:

RfA questions
Hi Fetchcomms. Sorry to bug you on your talk page, but I had a question about your !vote on my RfA and thought it more appropriate to seek clarification here. When you talk about project space edits, are you talking about the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia Talk: namespaces in general, or specific areas within those such as AfD or AIV? Again, sorry to bug you, I'm just hoping to get a better understanding. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WP: and WT: namespaces. AIV and AfD are included in those, but they are far from the only thing one should focus on in my opinion. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'm a little surprised you consider a combined 350+ edits to those spaces "almost nothing", but I recognize that everyone has different minimum requirements for support. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 350 is relatively low for an admin; a lot of admin work often pertains to projectspace. I'm not asking for 5,000 AfD votes or anything, but maybe a few hundred more? It's probably low because you've only been active a few months. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the additional clarification. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Capri Anderson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Capri Anderson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. == --Hixteilchen (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Signature
If it okay to make a redirect to a special page, for example, User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/c redirecting to Special:Contributions/Perseus, Son of Zeus? Thanks.

 Perseus ( t•c) 14:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't redirect to special pages. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering about that myself. Why can't one redirect to a special page? I n k a 888  00:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not technically possible; MediaWiki limitation. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can soft-redirect it. "Note that redirects to other Wikimedia projects, other websites, or special pages do not work. These should be avoided or replaced with a soft redirect template. Soft redirects are also used in category space (using the category redirect template)." (Redirect). Codedon (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of largest empires
Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you choose to notify me? I've never been involved in this and you should not canvass users. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oliver Dyer
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Jerem43 2
I'm deeply unimpressed with you "damned if you do, damned if you don't" oppose to the candidates Q6 and have commented at the RFA - I have also added a question there that might, I hope, provoke you into considering your oppose rationale (not your oppose - just the reason). I frankly don't give a toss about the RFA but honestly - opposing when you've set the bait like that strikes me as ... well you get the idea. Pedro : Chat  22:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers
Hi. As a courtesy, I'm asking you to reconsider your closing of the above-referenced AfD. There was no consensus to delete - the !votes were about even, and were running in favor of keeping if you discount the poorly reasoned or off-topic ones. I find the effort to stamp out lists of Jewish X to be problematic, particularly the undercurrent and frequent voting among those who have qualms over Jewish identity and wish to rid Wikipedia of all navigational tools that address Jewish identity in a systematic way, an opinion you rightly discounted. Your main point, that the notability of Jewish American entertainers was "not conclusively shown", disregards the sources and arguments offered in the discussion. It's absurd on the face of it, particularly using your formulation of the subject as "the importance of Jewish American entertainers to the entertainment industry". Are there sources that Jewish entertainers as a group have been important to the American entertainment industry? Yes, books, works of scholarship, symposiums, museum exhibits, projects, library collections, college curricula. Could anyone seriously question that?

I'll ask for your advice on this, or any other help you'd care to offer. My first instinct is to take this directly to deletion review, as an incorrect determination of consensus. However, if the real issue is establishing that the subject is notable, I could just go ahead and create a non-list article on the subject, then begin adding names either there or in a new list article once the notability is sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit that I wasn't quite accurate in saying "the importance of Jewish American entertainers to the entertainment industry"; I meant "the importance of the intersection between Jewish Americans and entertainers" but somehow ended up not writing that (maybe because it was around midnight!). The sources in the article were verifying that the people are Jewish, not the notability of the intersection, and I don't dispute that Jewish Americans have been a large part of the industry. However, what warrants an article on Jewish American entertainers? It would need to be the significance of being an entertainer and being Jewish American; that is, what is special about Jewish American entertainers and not, say, Nigerian American entertainers? I suppose I wrote the opposite of what I intended in the AfD closing statement—the sources show that Jewish Americans may be involved in the industry, but not the actual intersection between Jewish Americans and entertaining; I don't see a conclusive assertion that Jewish entertainers are a culturally significant phenomenon. Or, as WP:OC says, "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". While this is referring to categories, it is still applicable to a point in regards to lists. I did check some of the sources (as much as Google would let me for free) and what was available was about specific Jewish characters or roles, or the careers of actors who were Jewish.


 * My suggestion is, wait for Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_6 to end. If that results in the article being deleted still, then I don't see the point of a double standard toward the inclusion of Jewish American entertainers vs. Jewish actors. If that article is restored, I will immediately reverse my AfD close and restore the article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the closing statement says "Given the lack of a conclusive establishment of why this intersection is notable ... it seems like consensus leans more to delete". This seems flawed in several ways:


 * It seems to put the onus of making a proof upon the keep camp. The motion being debated was deletion and so it is for the delete camp to make a case.  WP:DGFA states emphatically, "When in doubt, don't delete." and this confirms where the onus lies.
 * The question of "why" the intersection is notable seems an unusual one which goes beyond the normal understanding of WP:N. We are not concerned with reasons why - we just record the facts as we find them.  The encyclopedic source which I provided contains page after page of detailed analysis of  American Jews in Entertainment and Popular Culture.  This seems to demonstrate notability beyond any reasonable doubt.  Consideration of why this topic is notable seems beyond our scope.
 * By stating that the consensus was "leaning more", it is demonstrated that there was no actual consensus. Consensus is a finding of general agreement not of a majority view.  This is not a voting process but an attempt at a meeting of minds to arrive at a generally acceptable solution.  We are not there yet.

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If one "side" makes a valid argument in their favor, the other side should refute it to prove their argument. If one side makes an argument and the other side counters, and neither argument leads to a consensus (i.e. "Red cars are better than blue cars" vs. "Blue cars are better than red cars") or has a significant policy advantage than the other, then it is up to one side (doesn't matter which) to find that advantage. In this case, the keepers were saying that the sources mean the intersection is notable, but it was contested that the sources were not themselves definitive on this (i.e. see the response to your keep statement).
 * I mean "why" as in "how; by what means". The source (I was not able to see all of it on Google Books) seemed to discuss Jewish roles and themes in the film industry, less than the significance of Jewish American-ness to the entertainer. (However, Google was hiding every other or every third page or so, so I may have missed something. I don't dispute, as I wrote above, that Jews have contributed heavily to the entertainment industry, but then so has almost every other race/ethnicity/religion/nationality in their own countries as well as internationally.)
 * I meant "leaning more" as in "not easily discernible, but in favor of". Sorry for the word choice, it was late at night and I was probably not thinking fast. I also did take into consideration of the related discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and its contents to an extent; as I said above I will reverse my closing if the DRV for that article results in "overturn".
 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought Fetchcomm's close was very well-explained. I'd expect it to hold up strongly at DRV.  Firstly, Wikidemon, consensus is not determined by discounting "the poorly reasoned or off-topic" votes, and then tallying up the remainder and seeing who wins.  Also, you seem to suffer from a common delusion that there is some kind of secret anti-semitic task force on WP whose only goal is to delete Judaism-related lists.  I don't think the deletion of this list is evidence of a conspiracy, and such accusations could arguably be described as assumptions of bad faith.  Instead, I think the reason why many of these jewish lists are currently at AfD is simply because there are so many of them compared to other religions.  There is no List of Christian American entertainers or List of Buddhist heavy metal artists.  In other words, it's not that there's an anti-semitic movement on WP, it's that the pro-semitic (if that's even a valid term) editors are far too enthusiastic about creating every list imaginable about Jews and their occupations.  At a certain point, some of these lists are going to be viewed as non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations (i.e. the "intersection" that Fetchcomms speaks of).  Yes, we can certainly find sources which prove that Jewish American entertainers do exist, but no one satisfactorily explained why that particular way of categorizing these people has any value.  If you're hellbent on creating such a list, I'd recommend starting at List of Jewish entertainers.  If that list gets too long, then you might have a reason to split it out by nationality.  Snotty Wong   comment 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need a primer on deletion, consensus, or notability - nor do I need to be called delusional or paranoid about antisemitism. Downplaying the significance of ethnic identity is what it is.  There are clearly a number of Wikipedians, many of them presumably Jewish themselves, who do not believe in Jewish identity politics and say so at every opportunity in deletion debates and on article talk pages.  Many of them commented enthusiastically in these discussions, although their views were generally discounted.  Some discount all identity categories and say that we are all just the human race.  If you're claiming that treating the intersection between secular/ethnic Jewish culture and American pop culture as an encyclopedic subject is being "pro-Semitic", that's a perfectly valid opinion but it is not an encyclopedic one.  Pro or con, if it is a notable subject we can cover it.
 * Although there was no consensus to delete these articles, I think deletion may be a good interim step because they were poorly organized and not too helpful. Rather than simply reinstating them and letting them continue to flounder, I think it would be best to build them again from the ground up instead of the top down.  There is actually a stronger case to make for more limited articles such as Jews in American comedy, Jewish-American humor, Jewish-American music, than such a broad article as Jewish entertainers.  The articles are more important than the lists, but if the list of representative examples gets too long for each article it can be broken out.  There may be some common threads to secular Jewish culture and how it relates to entertainment as an industry and occupation, but it is a huge subject.  The intersection between American Jews and, say, stand-up comedy is a lot better defined and easier to source.  If a broader theme comes out of all that, it would make a parent article to add later. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 December 6 closed, and the article was restored. Articles for deletion/List of British Jewish entertainers was also just closed as keep. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. I've changed my close of Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers to no consensus as well to reflect this decision as I said above. Hopefully there is no fuss, because another DRV is just wasting time imo. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah... don't you think this "talk page promise" should have been made a little more public? Like maybe public enough for you to mention it on the DR for Jewish actors? I didn't even learn about it until today. If the original entertainers AfD ended with you closing it "no consensus," and then I snuck on here and made some back-door-deal with you to change your close to "delete" if other related AfDs were deleted, there'd be nothing short of hysterical outrage -- along with all the RfCs and AN/Is and everything. Bit of a double standard? This should have really been taken to deletion review. "Entertainers" and "Actors" are not the same thing and this list (in its current state) is not even comparable to List of Jewish actors. Honestly, the canvassing alone should have been enough to take all these recent results with a massive grain of salt - much less start making precedents out of them. Bull dog123  00:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now making a big deal out of nothing. I am allowed to reconsider my own close, and I changed it. I have explained my change on the AfD page, and it's not my fault that no one took it to DRV earlier. Could you please stop extending these debates and just improve the articles? I don't want to argue on something you're overexagerrating. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're getting defensive for no reason really. You might be allowed to do it, but under the opposite circumstances (from no consensus to delete), this "backdoor" approach would have been considered completely inappropriate, and - knowing the zealotry of some of the participants - probably taken to WP:AN/I and made into an "Admin trading favors!"-shitstorm. Obviously, I think all that is overkill, ridiculous, and unnecessary, but I rather you acknowledge this was reversal was handled poorly instead of barking at me with comments like "just improve the articles." I'm assuming you typed that last bit out of anger, because otherwise I'd have to wonder if you ever truly knew what the delete voters were trying to say. There is no way to "improve" the articles. That was made clear throughout the AfDs and DRs whenever anyone talked about the inclusion criteria. The !keep voters claimed it was possible to improve. So why should I be doing their work? Articles were kept, it's now up to them to hold their tacit promises. (so far... doesn't seem to be happening) Bull dog123  20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, who's getting defensive again? And with the accusations! Anger? I think you're the one who's handling this poorly, but if you insist, I admit that I forgot to make note of my thoughts on the AfD at the DRV for the other article. If you don't want to improve the page, please don't complain to me anymore. This thread is way past its expiration date. Can we please move on now? Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "defensive" because it felt like you were being very testy and brusque instead of just acknowledging this was the wrong way to go about reversing your decision. Maybe you weren't trying to be, but it definitely came off that way. And no, I don't want to "move on" because I don't want people to start thinking - "Hey. AfD didn't end the way I wanted it to. I'll just persuade the admin to change his decision behind everyone's back" - is an appropriate method of reviewing closures. Really what you should have done is told Wikidemon to go ahead and bring his complaints to DRV, not make a promise completely unbeknownst to nearly every opposing party in the original AfD. This whole "As a courtesy, I'm asking you to reconsider..." thing was BS. There is nothing in WP:COURTESY regarding that. Wikidemon knew you were unsure of your closure and found this to be the fastest way to skirt standard procedure and bring back the list. If it wouldn't come off as WP:POINTy, I would definitely bring this to DRV after seeing your reaction to my questioning. But since I imagine the same users would canvass each other and aggregate there, I see no point in doing so. I hope you don't fall into the same crowd of people that assume because someone is obnoxious and unyielding (like me), they must also be wrong. Bull dog123  21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood what I meant in my promise. Even if no one had bothered me on my talk page, I would have changed my own close the exact same way. I made the promise so people would stop talking here. I am perfectly allowed to change my close, as I said above, and if you don't want to contest it at DRV, that's your choice. I'm exasperated that, despite your unwillingness to take this to DRV, you are still complaining about it here. What's done is done; if you don't want to look into getting it changed, there's no need to get me involved again. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback Activity
Hey Fetchcomms. Just wanted to let you know that I left a comment on the Article Feedback workgroup page. Please take a look when you have a moment. Thanks. Howief (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Howief (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Fetchcomms, per this, would you mind me doing the run? It'd take me a minute or so to set up. sonia ♫  04:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Team
Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentor for team of students
Hi, my name is James Fullerton, and I'm a teacher at Southern Lehigh Middle School in PA. Recently I've created a project that involves Wikipedia (WP) and small groups of students making a contribution to a WP article of their choosing, as long as the topic is related to the content of the course - being American Government, Civics, and Economics. For the past 4 weeks, students have become involved in the culture of WP, with many already narrowing in on a topic for their contribution. Here is the supportive material on Wikispaces (https://wikiedit.wikispaces.com/). Your assistance would be greatly appreciated! Would you be available to act as a mentor to a small group of students as they begin to offer additional content to an article of their interest? The team sizes are numbered between 5-7 students each. I will notify you as to who is in the teams with their WP user names. Jmfullerton (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be able to be a mentor, but I'd just like to know around when the assignment is due (the Wikispaces site listed ten weeks so I'm guessing near the end of January?). Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Great news! And yes the project should end towards the last week in January 2011. I'll contact you with a listing of teams and members. Again thanks!

Jmfullerton (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Damianism
Please see this. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA
I'm rather amazed that I didn't ask you already (I actually thought I did, but I suppose not), but could you give me some advice on what I can do to improve my RfA chances? Upon consulting with some other editors, I decided that it would be better not to try for a third time in December and instead wait until some undetermined time in the new year. I ran into a bit of a brick wall for the article on Vladimir Teplyakov, and I can't think of how to expand it, as I can't find any more sources on him. I've started recently to create more articles, and I hope to continue to do so. However, I'd really appreciate it if you would give me some guidance. --Slon02 (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TPS: Next time you click on Recent changes to check new vandalism edits, look at the fourth line from the top: Requests. Give them a try. Or, next time you feel the urge to tag something with A7, try expanding it. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, why do you want to be an admin? Ask yourself what you want to work in, ask yourself again if it's something you really want to spend lots of time in, and then focus on that for a while. For example, if you really like images, you can comment at FfD/PUF and patrol Special:NewFiles, which always needs attention. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to focus mainly on speedy deletion and AIV, but I was told that it would be better to expand my experience instead of focusing on those areas (for instance, creating more content instead of reverting vandalism). Thank you, however, for providing the link to the page of new files; I've tried to find it a few times and kept forgetting where it was. --Slon02 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-talkback
I posed a question for you at OTRS/volunteering. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Student Proj SL
Hi Fetchcomms,

Sorry for bothering you but our teacher JFullerton directed us to your page for help. We want to edit the wiki page on the Liberty Bell Monument in Allentown. There are 5 people in our group and I'm our team leader, so far only 2:5 have gotten their wiki accounts. We were hoping that you may be able to help us edit the wiki. Thank you! Livelaughlovedream (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome! :) To get started:
 * Make sure everyone has an account.
 * Everyone in the group should try some test edits first, so here's a good way to get that started:
 * Go to your own user page: click here for your own.
 * Click "edit" to edit your user page.
 * Add this code:.
 * Scroll down to the box that says "Edit summary" right above the "Save page" button. In that box, provide an edit summary, which is just a short description of what you edited. You can say "created user page" or something here.
 * Then hit the save button. Each person's user page should then have a red link that looks like /sandbox . Click on that link to go to your personal sandbox.
 * You can test wiki-code in your own sandbox—there's a quick cheatsheet for the basic code.
 * Go back to your user page when you are done testing in your sandbox. If you forget the link, go to the search bar and type "User:YOUR USERNAME HERE" (using your username, of course). Edit your user page again, and add links to the user pages of everyone else in your group. You can also write "I am part of a school project working on (the article name here)" so people know you're part of a school project in case they're wondering what's going on :)
 * When everyone has that set up, you can start a single draft page in someone's sandbox. That way, you can collect information and reorganize material at your own pace but still work on the article with everyone else together. When the article is due, you can copy the text into the live article.
 * If you need a review of the current article to see what you need to work on, just ask me. If you have a class plan on what you need to write, you can ask for advice still :)
 * If you have any other questions, reply directly below here like this:


 * Reply ...


 * The colons in the front indent the text so we can easily see who wrote what; the more colons, the more indenting, like


 * 1 colon
 * 2 colons
 * 3 colons

to make
 * 1 colon
 * 2 colons
 * 3 colons
 * Always remember to sign your posts on talk pages (not actual articles) by adding the code  at the end (good, you remembered above!) and the thing I must stress over everything else is to communicate. If someone does something to the article that you don't understand, ask them on their talk page, and be sure to check back to see if anyone has left you a message often, every day or every other day. Don't be afraid to ask if you have any questions! Thanks, / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  16:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Help for class project?
Hi I'm Iliketurtles04 (talk). We are doing a project for jmfullerton's class. We are doing a class project on Wikipedia, and we have to edit an article of our choosing. We picked the article Cruel and Unusual Punishment. We were wondering if you could help us edit this page. Where do you think we should start? Our group includes me, schaedlera, and two other people who have not gotten their accounts yet. They will be getting them soon. Thank you for your time and we hope you can get back to us soon!
 * Hi, welcome! See the post right above this one (Student Proj SL) for how to get set up first. I suggest starting a draft copy of the article first, and you should start by gathering reliable sources to get information from, such as news articles, magazines, books, and academic journals (but not blogs, social networking sites, or other Wikipedia articles!). After you have some good sources, start outlining your article and then write each section. I know I don't need to mention it, but use proper English (this is kind of like writing a research paper but in a less essay-like tone) and no plagiarizing, etc. If you have any specific questions or need advice for something, don't hesitate to ask me, but if you're not sure on how to do something, maybe be bold and just try something. Don't worry about making mistakes :) Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
  happy holidays

from mono

wishing you a joyful new year MonoALT (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lovely card. Season's greetings!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ☃
Thank you Fetchcomms, and merry Christmas to you too! --KFP (contact | edits) 16:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas for you too, Fetchcomms. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here Joseph Oppenheim article
Fletchcomms: From what I can tell, you have taken down the Joseph Oppenheim article I posted a few days ago for some reason. Unfortunately for me and my ignorance, being new to Wikipedia, I cannot decipher the codes to determine what the reason is. The article is extensively referenced (nearly every sentence supported by reliable sources) to correct other impressions about who invented the manure spreader. Do you intend to do some formatting edits, or content edits and then publish the article? Or will it just remain unpublished? In other words, are you going to do something or is there something I should do? What happens now? Thank you. Jjdilen

Jjdilen (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is still at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Oppenheim awaiting review. You do need to reformat it a bit, but it's not deleted. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  ' Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family. May your day be filled with pleasant surprises.   Link to Image '

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Sumsum2010 (talk) at 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Re: Merry Christmas
Thanks for the wishes and Merry Christmas to you too! Have a great holiday! Best wishes, Bejinhan   talks   06:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you too :D --Zalgo (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wishes too Flechcomms! :) Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to you! Best, MichChemGSI (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelief
Can you review the close Articles for deletion/Unbelief here. I was amazed to see a red link to unbelief! The discussions at the AfD objected to the content of the article (although they may have !voted "delete"), therefore I would say the technical close should be "keep" and the action, redirect to Belief.

Season's fishes. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC).


 * You are free to create a redirect now. I see no point in reviving a four-month-old AfD to restore a page history of OR and cruft. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


happy holidays from PPI
Thanks Fetchcomms, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. we still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
-  Dwayne   was here! &#9835; 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Onno Boelee
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Merry Christmas!


And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The Thing  T / C  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!


 WAYNE  SLAM has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

 WAYNE  SLAM 02:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Fetchcomms!! What a year it has been for St. Louis. Hopefully this new year will come with great joy.(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC))

Merry Christmas


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I (Guoguo12) have withdrawn my nomination and I would like to personally thank you for being the first to point out my lack of content experience. I would also like to apologize for my brusqueness in responding to your !vote. Happy editing and may our paths cross again. Guoguo12 --Talk--  02:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template:Bihar legislative assembly election, 2010
Thanks.(Lihaas (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).

OTRS
Hi. You will have noticed that I have endorsed your application. This does not mean that I always concur with any sysop decisions or comments you make on various debates at en.Wiki; it is an expression of the confidence I have in the maturity and professionalism with which you respond to those tasks in the interests of this project and the Wiki Foundation. Good luck, and best wishes for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:64.120.47.10
The IP should be blocked per the comments on that talk page. They are a block evading roaming IP of indef blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus among editors
Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller has removed the edit saying (please stop - you've added it right after "and include the following:" which makes no sense, but the main thing is that you are arguing about the subject and that's inappropriate here, this is just a list of conspiracy theories, not a place to argue) and (who says they add support? this is not good content and probably block evasion)   User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer undid the edit saying '' Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner. This isn't good content.)  and Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner, even if it's good content.'' The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history  More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10  The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf   Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404710257  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Freedom5000, you're not allowed to edit here. This current IP needs to be blocked for a long time as the previous block didn't help. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just this IP of yours that isn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48h. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are a number of us who'd rather use our time in a more useful manner here. Now which IP is he going to pop up on next? He just won't stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB Question
Hi Fetchcomms. I have what I think is a simple AWB question for you. I am reviewing for a new user an article that he is creating in his userspace. I notice that he has bolded the name of the article’s subject throughout the article, contrary to MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE. What I would like to do, to make unbolding each occurence less tedious, is to use AWB to find and replace all of the occurences on that page. But, sadly, I cannot figure AWB or the manual out! Would you be able to tell me simply how to do this? Thanks and Happy Holidays! —  Spike Toronto  01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's only for one page, I think a simple find/replace using the vector toolbar's find/replace function should work better than AWB, which would be better for making this change on many pages. There are also external tools such as FoxReplace that would work fine for this. If you tell me which page this is on, I can fix it for you. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Originally, when I requested AWB privileges, I thought it might be useful for making such edits on wikiarticles I might be working on. But, the more I look at it and its documentation, the more I realize that it’s more for making global, system-wide, and/or batch edits to multiple articles. In addition to your alternatives, the only other one I can think of would be to copy the wikitext and paste it into a basic text editor with find-and-replace functions, perform the find and replace, and then copy and paste the wikitext back into the wikiarticle overwriting the contents in the edit box. Thank you for your offer to perform the find-and-replace for me! That’s very kind of you. You can find the article here. What I want to do is replace every occurence of INKAS (i..e., ) with INKAS (i.e.,  ), other than the first occurence in the lede section. Thanks! —  Spike  Toronto  02:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Did you use FoxReplace or the find-and-replace function in the Vector toolbar? Thanks again! —  Spike Toronto  03:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The one in the toolbar. It's javascript-based, so it might crash the browser if trying to replace a couple hundred words at once, but it's usually pretty fast. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alas, I use Microsoft Internet Explorer and the monobook skin on my PC. Is there a toolbar, find-and-replace equivalent for such an antiquated setup? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, IE sucks :P You could still use AWB, as it has a find/replace feature; it'd just be inefficient starting it up for just one page. There are some regex scripts available, such as WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Replace, and they might work for you. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Oppenheim
Fetchcomms. Thank you for posting the Joseph Oppenheim article. I would have liked using the picture of his original manure spreader instead of a generic contemporary one (which still uses the same principle, but that is a minor quibble. Thanks for your quick action.  A nice Christmas present. With every wish that 2011 is an excellent year for you

Jjdilen (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, thanks ... but actually, I've never touched that article before. The people who have edited it are listed here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help on refs, suggestion for WP:FN
Thanks for replying to my helpme. I've made a suggestion on WP:FN Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes) Feel free to make any comments there.

Verapar (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Psst!
-  Dwayne   was here! &#9835; 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc / Commons

 * I know you didn't need this but, It's my first chance to use this new found template. :P

Mlpearc  powwow  06:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup
Regarding this, I thought sign-ups were going to remain open until at least the end of January? Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This said "signups will close in December" and according to this, it was specifically the 31st. I'm not sure that the "late registration" will continue for 2011, but I'm pretty sure that the judges will be lenient for a couple of weeks. I just made the change in your diff because a large number of late signups isn't really fair and it's poor form on their part. Unless someone was on a wikibreak for a few months or just did not know about the WikiCup, they probably shouldn't be signing up this late. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup/2011 signups
The signups are not now closed- we are keeping them open through January. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mix-up—but that really should have been written down somewhere earlier. It doesn't seem fair to have one page say something for the whole time and then suddenly write a change now. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds RFA
I hope that your second question to Ironholds was a joke.

It's an RFA, not a legal exam :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of it was meant as a joke, but the other part was me just seeing how well he could explain something briefly and me wondering if there wss any connection between the English legal system and Wikipedia's policies. At any rate, I liked the answer and the comparison of it to a backbone. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__