User talk:JaniB

Welcome!
Hello, FrontBottomFracas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Thanks, Cirt FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FrontBottomFracas, you are invited to the Teahouse
Thanks, Osarius. I actually took a course in Wikipedia at work and I feel reasonably confident about the basics at least. I don't expect to be doing that much editing. Just keeping an eye on one or two things of interest to my employers and perhaps helping out from time to time in areas such as the Featured Article. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Importance of sourcing
Your insistence on adding the birth date to the article Suicide of Amanda Todd is bordering on vandalism. You may mean well, but you simply have no valid argument. Providing reliable sources is one of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia and is not open for discussion. And it doesn't matter what s happening on other articles. It only means those articles need fixing also. I suggest you read Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability. This will give you an understanding. Thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As Bash said—I've removed your addition again.  Theo polisme  Boo! 00:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please follow through with your determination to seek dispute resolution stated in your edit summary with this edit. Choose the place you wish to raise this wisely. You do not wish to be seen to be edit warring, for example, and have your request dismissed out of hand. By doing so you will call other editors in to see the issue and an even wider consensus will be reached, probably against your desire to add an imperfectly sourced date of birth. Please remember that Wikipedia is entirely uninterested in the truth. It only concerns itself with verifiable and verified facts. While this may seem peculiar to you it is the way consensus has determined that Wikipedia works.
 * Which brings me to consensus. Consensus is currently against adding the date of birth, certainly without, potentially even with, a citation in a reliable source. You are within your rights to seek to change consensus, but not within your rights to go against it continually. One way of seeking that consensus is to ask for other, uninvolved, editors to give their impartial opinion. When doing this it is very important not to canvass for the result you desire. You should ask them to look at the article and to determine for themselves whether the date of birth is relevant to the article. If they, together with the editors who are already interested in the article, decide it is, even then it may only be added with a reliable source as a reference.
 * Please take the heat out of you desire to have the young lady's full date of birth in the article. Consensus works much better if it is approached in a spirit of quietness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No heat from me Fiddle Faddle. It's not me instantly reverting edits. I don't have time right now. I may look at this later this evening or tomorrow. I'm exceptionally busy right now.
 * Of course Amanda Todd's date of birth should be noted, as is usual in these articles. Not to note it is to raise doubts in the reader's mind. The only issue is whether it is challenged or not and I don't see how it can plausibly be given that it is multiply sourced, including her family's remembrance page. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides. Every Wikipedia editor is expected to interact with others calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. We should not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom we have a disagreement. Rather, approach matters intelligently and engage in polite discussion. In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. We are better served by connecting ideas than we are by protecting them. ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The outcome will be whatever it is, but you are, currently, fighting consensus instead of influencing it. There is a very strong distinction between the two approaches, and, generally, the results they produce. Your edit summaries often 'threaten' action somewhere, which can appear to be bullying, and is not a productive behaviour. Please change this approach. Changing it is likely to be more productive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I twice posted in that thread on the talk page without attempting to edit the article. It was only when the issues I raised were not responded to that I made a WP:BOLD edit and elaborated my remarks. These were met with a cavalier revert and the remark that my arguments, which were nothing more than a precise statement of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, were not worth debating, as well as with the personal attack you see at the beginning of this thread. No consensus was reached about the nature of this article. Its AfD was unresoved, as indeed are most AfDs of this nature. I'm not 'threatening' anything, merely pointing out that I shall pursue a dispute resolution process if we can not reach agreement. To say I'm threatening things and indulging in bullying behaviour is both unfounded and a personal attack and I will not respond to another post from you like this.
 * To repeat, Amanda Todd's birth date is reliably sourced and it is absurd and stigmatising not to include it in the article, whatever it's nature, the more so when in fact it is the inclusion of the day of the month of her birth that is objected to. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of official languages by state
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of official languages by state. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd
Per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, birth date must be kept out for until consensus is reached at talk page. Make a case, get agreement, and add it when that is achieved. If you don't we will keep removing the date, and eventually you may be blocked. Nobody wants that. Please trust the community. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But I'm not "keeping" adding it, Anna, and certainly not since you reverted my Find a Grave citation. On each occasion I did add, the citation were different and I didn't restore.
 * Are you saying that when a secondary source is available, as is likely to happen sooner or later, the date shouldn't be given in full without achieving consensus?
 * I see that perfectly reasonable edits by me in the "See also" and "External links" sections are now being reverted routinely. I feel bullied.
 * Since you're here, what might be your take on Errant's "mundane" biographical details? For example (hypothetically) if an RS happened to establish that Amanda Todd was compulsively addicted to (say) Facebook would that be "mundane"? Or her personality, (again hypothetical), if an RS would note she was outward, fun-loving, sociable girl, is that "mundane" too?
 * I have posted RfC about the date of birth issue. Feel free to contribute. Thank you FrontBottomFracas (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, continuing to push the whole addition of day/date is against the wishes of most of the community. You may see it as being bullied, but the community may see it as you pushing a point of view againt consensus.


 * I will revert the addition of the Find A Grave external link. I think visitors will believe it, while it's probably not a reliable source. Most of the community doesn't want an exact date because we don't have a good source for one. Please let's leave out the date until we have a good source. If the community thinks external links Find A Grave is a good idea, I will accept it because I trust the community. Usually it's best strongly consider whether or not your position is right when the community broadly opposes.


 * I think we should add facts that are "germane" to the suicide. "Fun-loving" is not germane, I think. If she was an avid, competitive skier in her youth, that maybe be an interesting fact, but not germane. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all I can't immediately spend any more time on this until after the US presidential election (just canvassing). I shall probably look in Wednesday evening, but I have to say I see more and more a rather blatant case of indians circling the wagons here (yes, we took a module on that as well) and probably it's better I cut my losses here. I might try write it up for this Tea Party thing Wikipedia now has which I gaven't checked out yet. I'll restore the Find a Grave lunk with comment as suggested by the page you quote, just to annoy you :).


 * "Fun loving" could possibly be germane (perhaps that here we are dealing with yet case of adloscent depression not characterised by downers - I'm only suggesting a hypothetical scenario - but nevertheless Amanda Todd was depressed and unable to cope with the stress of personal attacks). Similarly the day of her birth would be germane for some researchers as it would place her horoscope (not for us to make judgements about that). Thus I think November 27 would make her Sagittarius rather than Scorpio and that might, for example, be relevant for her self-perception. I can't see we can second-guess what's germane or not, mundane or not.


 * Something I will be checking out Wednesday is the declaration it was a suicide itself. Has there been an inquest yet?


 * I'm sorry we can't agree further. I really admired your start here. I should perhaps indicate my commitment (I did offer Bash), you would be surprised, but in the circumstances I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort. I shall await more fertile ground (that is a reproach). FrontBottomFracas (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry too. But I do indeed respect your views. Regarding "Fun-loving": Her mental state prior to the incident is relevant. Adding such content to the article should be handled with care, and well-sourced. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You
My dear fellow editor: Normally we give a stupid kitten to soothe any hard feelings. But, it is with great respect that I award to you this barnstar.

We may have different views on the Todd matter, but such is Wikipedia. Please don't think that we are ganging up. Sides happen naturally as a result of editors calling them as they see them. Your conduct is civil and thoughtful. You are engaged, and behaving like a darn good editor. You have the right stuff.

I avoid disputes like the plague, but they happen. The important thing for me is to trust the community more than myself alone. I stumbled onto the idiotic topic of Ultimate Fighting Competitions (UFC). A tight alliance of editors insisted that each event did not deserve an article. There were articles for say UFC 33, UFC 35, UFC 38, UFC 40, etc. This seemed ludicrous. Wikipedia could be a great hub for UFC. IPs were on my side. 3 regulars opposed. I took it far. In the end, 6 experienced editors said "no" and explained that they were protecting the standard of the project -- that many of the articles were just not notable. Ultimately, I trusted the community more than my own judgement and conceded. It would have been easy for me to have felt sour grapes and walked. I didn't.

If, in the end, we must wait for a super-reliable date, please never leave Wikipedia. We need your kind. There are lots of areas here, many of which are non-controversial such as Requested articles/Images. I will always be around to work with you if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Anna. That was really pleasant. Thanks. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I Must remember to give barnstars. I almost never manage to remember. I agree with Anna absolutely. At once point I failed to understand properly how WIkipedia worked. To try to understand it and to make myself a better writer, I immersed myself in trying to bring World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories from a highly POV oriented article into at least quasi-neutrality. I had and have absolutely no interest in the subject matter, but I was interested in the editing process and the handling of highly non neutral editors (I am not making any comparisons here, because you are neutral. I hope you do not think I am doing so).
 * There were editors with an axe to grind, editors who were opposed to documenting the facts of the theories because "They are conspiracy theories and should not be given air time", sock puppets, arguments for deletion and much else besides. What I found I was able to add to the area was a calm voice, and one that insisted on citations for every fact or pseudo-fact. I was not alone, but I was almost alone in the simple fact that the topic itself was not in the smallest bit interesting to me. Mine was an academic exercise in seeing if I could work in a hotly contested and partisan area.
 * I could also see how and why editors held a view that would not be shifted by any manner of persuasion and watched them become burned out. They failed to spot what Anna spotted, that the community, right or wrong, determines what happens here, and that we can seek to influence it, but can not ever succeed as a lone voice. I saw Wikipedia eventually as a strange and amusing social experiment in seeing if many different people could work together with any degree of success. It amuses me that so many rules and procedures have been created that often are counterproductive, and have been created by ordinary folk to police themselves in what ought to be a far simpler operation. The psychology here is astounding, including a strong desire to control and be controlled.
 * Among all that we have fun. If it ever stops being fun I go away for a while. I come back because it amuses me. And I hope it amuses you, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't know anything about World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and in general I don't interest myself in conspiracy theories. It's a free world world after all. I can certainly imagine that's hotly contested territory.
 * But my beef here frankly isn't about anything controversial. I wouldn't quite put it as "having fun", but I do understand something of the sort, prticipating in a community, is a popular and legitimate reason for editing Wikipedia. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you are not attempting to do anything controversial, or at least anything that would be considered controversial by anyone external to Wikipedia. I know absolutely nothing, by the way, about the WTC controlled demolition theories. I didn't when I started there and I knew just as little when I stopped. Mine was the academic exercise of taking a part in something that was in disarray and influencing the brining of it into some sort of shape that had technical merit. One could have obtained a PhD based upon the human interactions in that article alone, of that I am certain.
 * I understand totally your point about the date of birth. Under different circumstances with a different pool of editors taking an interest in the article it would be in there and unchallenged. In those cases consensus is a 'nemine contradicet' form and things stay in article like that for many years, sometimes. In this article the pool of editors insists on a citation. It appears that, certainly at first, they objected to any form of date of birth, so having even the month and year in at all shows how consensus may be influenced. You and others have influenced it that far. It is highly unlikely that you will achieve the actual day of the month without a citation, and it is equally unlikely that, unless her birth record is cited, the date will appear in other sources now. Interestingly one might then debate wether her official birth record is a primary source!
 * I wonder in a few months if anyone will even notice if, among other edits, the full date of birth arrives by the hand of another editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But my point is that her date of birth is known and can't seriously be challenged.It sometimes happens that date of births for relatively recent figuries can't be established (an example I noticed recently is Montgomery of Alamein's wife) but it's rather rare. There are other issues I haven't raised as well. Still busy. I'll look in the RfC hopefully tonight or this weekend. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the whole thing has now been settled and the date of birth is now included. It leaves me with an extremely bad taste in my mouth. I really don't think it's worth editing Wikipedia in this kind of environment. I shall consider, but frankly I don't think the game's worth the candle. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why the bad taste? I think things went as they should have: Consensus was required because the community felt something was controversial. The date remained out until a solid source was found. It went by the book, I think. I don't understand how you think it could have gone better.


 * Conflict is normal here. It's how correct outcomes happen. When I first started, one of my edits was reverted, and I was choked. I was told that at Wikipedia, one needs to have a bit of a thick skin. It's true. This is a good place to practice rolling with the punches. It builds character. :) Please don't leave. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It went by the book, pretty much self closed, and they was formally closed. It just happened early. That is also fine. It also went the way you hoped. I'm mystified. Good result achieved early. looks like a win to me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry...
...for my "joke" remark, since it evidently did not come over in the light-hearted spirit in which I intended it. I have said a little more about it on my talk page, in response to your message there. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User name
Are you aware that "front bottom" is a euphemism for vagina? If you didn't know, I thought you should. If you did know, and now you do, I suggest you request a username change at WP:CHU/S. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would it require to be changed? The Vagina Monologues is an article here. The user name may not appeal to you, but it does no harm. Where is it outside our policies? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An article is one thing, a username is another. Article names are in no way related to usernames.  Of course, you could always check WP:U where it suggests that "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors" or "Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction" or "Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia" is noted.  I would suggest a user name that suggests some kind of fracas in a vagina be unnecessarily unpleasant enough to necessitate a request a rename.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. I find the username thought provoking and amusing. I wonder whether WP:NOTCENSORED extends to usernames :) Your mileage may vary, but I see this username as devoid of harm. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think it's not a big enough deal to warrant a username change. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well fine by me. I found it slightly inappropriate, but then again political correctness has modified a lot of our thoughts these days.  You're all happy with a quarrel in a vagina?  That's fine.  I'll leave it as is.  Next time someone suggests we're discouraging female editors by our thoughts and deeds, I'll recall this moment.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think female editors are perfectly capable of holding their own here, you know :) As for political correctness, I think you will find I never tolerate it. I find it almost uncivil for you to imply that I do :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're unaware of the exodus of female editors from this site? Besides that, I couldn't give a damn about the username.  I just thought that if someone started editing under "WonkyCock" or "FrontDickFracas" things would be taken differently.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * People come and go as they please. Their sex is immaterial. It is unlikely that an editor who is upset by a username such as this would survive a single queried edit, really. The issue with editor retention is not unusual usernames of other editors. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is obviously a numbers thing. You see .1% of editors will encounter her account, of those, .1% will know what a "Front Bottom" is, of those, .1% will be offended.


 * Now, I'm no maths wiz, but that's 1 in 1,000,000, right? And what's the chance of getting struck by lightning? 1 in a million. So, the instant someone is offended, chances are they get struck by lightning. Poof. End of problem.


 * What does this all tell you? Exactly. Anna's I.Q. is .1% of the normal I.Q., the result of her being struck by lightning. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting, if it was, but it wasn't, and it made no sense and had no relevance to the discussion other than to expose your innate views on how this website works which are clearly contrary to the collegiate, inclusive approach we try to take, which also includes attempting to avoid alienating female editors who aren't as robust as you seem to portray. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, their "sex" is not "immaterial". We have a deficit of female editors, and their number is in decline. Why persist with usernames that could upset editors when plenty of other names are available? Your assertion is pointless and baseless. Editors we're trying to encourage to join and stay may just wish to not be subject to edits from juvenile accounts including references to "front bottoms". Why encourage the declining population of Wikipedia editors to use such possibly upsetting and childish names? It's not clever, it's not "challenging", it's not "making a statement", it just isolates. If you believe in that, this isn't the project for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. Better safe than sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder, since we are speaking of editor retention, whether you have noticed that this editor, who may be female, is considering leaving?
 * Nonetheless the sex of editors is entirely immaterial. What we need is editors who will edit well. That is not an attribute of either sex. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sex of editors is material when we have so few female editor whose contributions entirely enrich this encyclopaedia. The more we lose, the less rich we become.  That's entirely and abundantly obvious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an amusingly sexist position ;) What possible difference does the sex of an editor make? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You want that discussion? That women can give birth etc? The original point of my comment was "why unnecessarily isolate editors with childish user names"?  Next was "why unnecessarily make female editors less likely to edit here when we have such childish "front bottom" references that other editors like you advocate such user names"?  Finally, your droll put down is pointless, it's not an "amusingly sexist position", it's fact.  Wikipedia has lost most of its female editing base, and in any situation, that's not good.  Unless you think it is?  I wouldn't advocate deliberate or even tacit homophobic usernames, so why advocate usernames like this which are clearly biased and potentially upsetting to the female editorship?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are exhibiting oversensitivity. I neither think it is good that you state, presumably with the figures to back it up, that women are leaving, nor think it bad. I see it as simply a fact. It is nether a good fact nor a bad fact. I think, if you feel it to be important, you might devote your efforts to editor retention as a macroscopic thing. At the present level your stance appears to me to be less than productive. I don't intend to have the last word, though. I think we should, probably after your next reply, leave it to the owner of the username, don;t you?
 * No, I'm exhibiting Wikipedia-sensitivity. You need to understand how important it is that we try to stave off the loss of editors, female or otherwise.  Removing juvenile and possibly offensive editor names is a start.  You would prefer us to keep editor names that are obviously potentially offensive to women or homosexuals or any other minority? That seems like a strange stance.  If you believe my stance to retain as many editors as possible to be "less than productive" then I have nothing more to say to you.  Clearly you've been trolling me and that's a real shame as it's wasted most of my evening trying to do my best to stand up for the minority sections of Wikipedia editors who you seem to actively wish to isolate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you accuse me of being a troll and are putting words into my mouth. Please try very hard not to do things like that. Your user page suggests you are a bureaucrat here, so you ought to be well above that sort of behaviour. Our opinions differ. You have a right to yours, I have a right to mine. I disagree with you and with the rather unpleasant attitude you are trying to make appear to have come from me. I was going to leave this, but you have taken advantage of me here. For once and for all, an editor is an editor. That they join is good. That they leave is sad. Their sex is irrelevant, so os their sexuality, a subject that you have raised, I suspect because you have visited my user page and seen userboxes there. I see this as an attempt to goad me, one which I will never rise to. We will not agree on that topic. We do not have to. It's even fine that we do not. But I think your behaviour in this last message of yours is unacceptable and the things I complain of should be retratcted and pleasantly. Until that attempt at goading we were simply discussing matters, and doing so amicably. I choose to continue amicably, but I confess I am saddened. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

FrontBottomFracas: So, what do you think? Will you stay? Now you're probably doubly put off. :) If you stay, would you consider changing your username just to put all this to rest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I chose the user name because I planned a big edit on the Pussy Riot trial. It's likely to go to appeal soon. Open to changing it. Joke has worn thin. Don't know offhand how to change it. Will look into directly. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A bit much
This is a bit much. All over a borderline username on the off-chance someone will encounter it and be offended enough to leave? All this over a user who is borderline leaving? All this while core editors and admins alike commit terrible violations of NPA and CIVIL, get blocked multiple times without getting booted?? If we blow thousands of characters on this matter while ignoring what really chases editors away (me too, almost), then our priorities are seriously out of whack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this would depend on the original premise of the semi-retirement being based on my objection to the user name, which, as far as I can tell, isn't actually reality. It's more to do with the fact that this editor's contributions at Lord McAlpine's artice have been deemed unacceptable.  Different proposition entirely.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, Gambling Nan again. My nemesis. As I recall you implied I spent all my time investigating child abuse claims. Nice (not that there's anything wrong woith that of course). FYI my interest in Lord McAlpine in fact stems from his libelling in social media such as Twitter and Facebook. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You ought not to leave
Wikipedia is what it is. Look carefully and you will see that it is a massive social experiment that looks very much like an encyclopaedia. Once you accept that not everyone else is reasonable in their approach you will enjoy yourself more. The key to having fun is to remember not to take anything that happens here seriously, but to play your part in the great experiment. It's a great learning ground for surviving corporate life down in the grunt pool, too.

I don't always share your opinions, but that's great, too. I stand by your right to have them, hold them firmly and to differ from me and anyone else.

It's hugely discouraging to have edits reverted until you decide never to edit as a mother. Edit as a father instead, make your edits and send them into the world to see how well they survive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should, however, understand that wholesale changes on a high-visibility article usually become scrutinised by the community. Big changes such as those you implemented are best worked via talkpages and consensus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fiddle Faddle (also Anna above). In reply to The Rambling Man I had contributed, in fact inaugrated, at length to the Lord McAlpine discussion on the Talk page. Of course there's a tradition of bold edits in Wikipedia. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you're staying. I never associated FBF with PR, though. The joke was too close to your heart (!) I think! It makes sense now. I'm glad that you are the one who chose to change the name rather than feeling pressured into it. I thought it a weird name, but had no problem with its acceptability. It wasn't as weird as many here! Life is too short to worry about such stuff. Now get on and make bold and 'not bold' edits to your heart's content. The most important thing is not ever to take this place too seriously. If you ever find you're getting hot under the collar, or if things suddenly feel urgent here, then you're doing it wrong! Wikipedia is not real life, and it is amazingly unimportant. Editing here should be an amusing pastime, never anything more. We will never change the world here. We are only allowed to report on other people;s attempts to do that when those attempts are reported in reliable sources! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers FiddleFaddle. Thanks for this. My only reservation here is that I don't necessarily agree that editing Wikipedia should always just be a pastime, though I don't doubt that's an entirely legitimate reason or motivation for editing Wikipedia. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your new username
It's way cooler. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I regretted it almost immediately ... JaniB (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation
I have found it curiously difficult to contact the Wikimedia Foundation to express by concerns about Suicide of Amanda Todd. To avoid any doubt that I have made a reasonable attempt to contact them to express my concerns and request that they be addressed, I copy my email below. I stress that is not to be interpretated in any way as constituting a legal threat. I represent no one and I am not contemplating any kind of legal action of my own behalf or any other individual or body. It is however an affirmation that I have made every reasonable effort to bring these issues to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Regarding Wikipedia itself, I have posted my concerns on Suicide of Amanda Todd's Talk page, at the Wikipedia Suicide Project templated on the Talk Page, at the Village Pump, and in due course I will open a BLP Noticeboard request concerning the deceased person's aspects of the case. I believe this exausts all the options open to me within Wikipedia to have these concerns addressed.

Following is the content of my email. I have archived this page here:


 * Attn: please forward to relevant officer


 * I wish to draw attention to two issues in connection with the article Suicide of Amanda Todd in the English Wikipedia.


 * In the first place a coroner's court has yet to rule that Amanda's death was a suicide. The B.C. Coroners Service has released a statement saying that a preliminary investigation had established her death was suicide http://vancouverne.ws/?p=13031, but that is not a ruling. The coroner has stressed the investigation will be long and and complex, and she will not release details of how Amanda died. I point out that the death could, for example, still be a misadventure. In the case of Kurt Cobain, a somewhat implausible conspiracy theory is nevertheless considered sufficient ground to entitle the article Death of Kurt Cobain. I ask that the same scruple should be accorded Amanda until such time there has been a ruling into cause of her death.


 * In the second place the Wikipedia article must be considered a news article. Nevertheless it is significantly in breach of several guidelines published by the Canadian Psychiatric Association regarding the responsible reporting of suicide http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=733&xwm=true. The first three of these are 1 there should be no mention of the mechanism of the suicide 2 the word "suicide" should not appear in the headline 3 photos of the deceased should not appear. The article currently breaches all three of these. The purpose of these guidelines is to act as a safeguard against contagion suicides, so-called copycat suicides, such as appear to have taken place in Bridgend, UK, Bridgend suicides where some 79 teenagers have committed suicide in the past five years. Given that a recent survey shows that up to 50% of UK teenagers have been a victim of cyberbullying, implicated in the Amanda's case, the risk must be considered significant. I ask that Wikipedia articles reporting suicides, and especially teenage suicides, observe such guidelines and that Amanda's article accordingly be made compliant immediately.


 * I am the Wikipaedia user User:JaniB. For the avoidance of doubt I affirm that I am a citizen of the European Union. I am a retired person with homes in the UK, the Netherlands and Switzerland.


 * I sent this message to the information desk of Canada branch of the Wikimedia Foundation with a request it be forwarded to the relevant office, but received no reply. I am therefore resending it directly to the principal of the Canada branch, as well as to the US, UK and Netherlands branches. I ask for confirmation that my message has been received and is being considered and that in due course I may expect to hear your responses.


 * [a name was supplied]

JaniB (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Added:I'm unable to send it to the Canada branch because they will not open an account for me on the basis of the limited biographical information about me I am willing to supply. I did, however, hear very rapidly from the UK chapter in an exceptionally courteous acknowledgment recommending me to open a deceased person's case, and this I have now done at BLP_noticeboard. JaniB (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can offer some well-meaning advice - give up. I don't entirely agree with your view on this, but I do understand it. Sadly, most Wikipedia editors will simply regard your suggestions as attempts to censor something they know to be true. After all, they read in "reliable sources" on the internet that Todd committed suicide, so the official report is moot. This is a knee-jerk reaction and, once invoked, any argument you make will be suspect. In my experience, the Wikipedia community tends towards dogmatism and a lack of compassion. This is not surprising, considering the demographics of WP and the types of personalities that it attracts. I can guarantee that you will not be successful here. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much for this. I'm inclined to agree. I'm extremely disconcerted and discouraged by the whole experience. I'll soldier on for a while until at least the inquest is published and the stats are in for incidence of teenage suicide coinciding with Amanda's death. I'm afraid I have a rather bad feeling about how this article has developed, notwithstanding the good faith shown by its start editors. JaniB (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delicious carbuncle is mostly right, according to my experience, and I've been in and out of activity for over 8 years now. The crowd here can be quite "cruel", even if with the best of intentions. Do not stress yourself out too much about it. (I did went a little over the top back in 2010, out of frustration, still getting back to my cool). Probably the best is to drop our opinion and do not engage in more conversation than needed to make our point clear. The "others" will not change their mind. Just about as much as I will not change mine to their opinion. But someone, quiet, reading only, will read, and maybe, just maybe, they'll agree with me. - Nabla (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid truth and real life do not now have, nor will ever have, anything to do with Wikipedia, an organ which is edited by the alleged wisdom of crowds. I have no doubts that you are 100% correct, JaniB, in everything you assert to be true. That does not mean that your assertions will ever hold sway here. The place, as I have said often, is a pastime. Some years ago, many years ago, in the 1970s, on the library wall at my university was the large painted piece of graffiti "Seek truth from facts to serve the people!" At wikipedia one is not allowed to do that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:BoatArrivals.gif
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:BoatArrivals.gif. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panchen Lama
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Panchen Lama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)