User talk:Timtrent/Archive 8

Pink and slimy things
Yeah well the AfD is politically motivated since the pink slimers just think I created it to bash pink slime which I didn't I created it since I saw the Meat Producer's of American lady in an interview claiming that LFTB is not dog food nor is it salvage meat or meat that fell on the ground and it made me want to create an article on the topic to watch it incubate and see where it went and what it was, but of course it was immediately nominated out of spite.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely you are right nevertheless the BPI and Meat Industry propaganda machine has had no trouble populating the article with their viewpoints, I have just neutralized them as best I can while adding in the content such as which stores won't sell it and that it's made with fecal matter exposed integument, which I doubt they will be forthcoming with. In the end to be a good pink slimer I highly believe every opinion needs to be given its due weight and place in the article, including BPI's position and reasoning, ABC news reporting, USDA/FDA, Jamie Oliver, John Stewart, and the public disgust as well. I hope the league of copyeditors can get involved and perhaps we can have this article featured eventually.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What happened to the rescue template!!!???LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is really lame, where is this discussion? And it is a shame, that template really helped save a lot of quality articles. How does the article rescue squad catalog article for rescue now?LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you very much.

Egeymi (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 

An award for you

 * Good lord. I Must get out more! Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tidal Impact
I have removed the prod tag you placed on Tidal Impact, as per policy an article that has ever been discussed at AfD is permanently ineligible for prod. I did say in my edit summary that I did not see WP:NPASR called out in the AfD closure, but I now see that it was. But NPASR refers to speedy renomination at AfD. The fact that one established user !voted in good faith to keep the article and another said that "to delete it would be a mistake" indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, which is why the "no prod after AfD" policy is in place.

Note that I only took this action in order to comply with policy; I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing what one learns. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you for your recent support. You are a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia who is leading by example and helping to improve articles. If only there were more editors around like you! Dahliarose (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what I have done, but I accept your thanks :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim
re my "draconian" suggestion, the parties involved have managed to spread their discussion into many incorrect venues. For example, the ANI thread that was started points to two articles with blank talkpages, a fair indication it doesn't belong there from the start, and drags on with a discussion that has no place on ANI, so the suggestion helps highlight a change in venue is appropriate and the parties themselves should make some attempt to do so. Penyulap  ☏  23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You think it does that, but I still cannot spot it form what you have said :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall try to incorporate that advice into new comments. That particular thread needs no further help from me after Uncle G took over with new info. Penyulap  ☏  14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:COAL is often appropriate Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that before, it pretty much is exactly what I have been doing intuitively, like at AN and so forth. Penyulap  ☏  20:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One learns, after a while, that things are best said well, and once. But the temptation to elaborate remains with us for ever. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Really, hmm, yes I'd have to agree, and then there is the occasional temptation to have the last word, I don't suffer from that however :) Penyulap  ☏  22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

signature
please fix your signature so it at least hints as to your username. Nobody Ent 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My signature is perfectly valid according to Wikipedia rules and policies. It has been the same since I joined in 2006 and I am not about to change it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, kind sir. I must remember to give some of these out :) I tend towards the cryptic comment on others' talk pages instead Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

NAU Laboratory of Glycosciences
Regarding your declining my speedy deletion nomination of NAU Laboratory of Glycosciences: I had considered a redirect, but considering that the target article does not mention the laboratory, I considered it an invalid redirect. And since the article on the laboratory is written to imply that it functions as a standalone company, I thought the db-corp to be best. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm easy either way, truly :) If you feel speedy is the way, revert my stuff and reinstate yours with my blessing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for my edits in the article "Catamaran." I learn now. thanks a lot!Challengethelimits (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes. We all learn. Welcome to WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem

 * Anyway, thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please verify Ajmal Kasab's Date of Birth as per symbolism attached to the Mumbai terror in both 26/11 and half date 13/7
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MAH-MUM-first-pics-of-serial-blasts-terror-strikes-mumbai-again-2260088.html http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MAH-MUM-july-13-blasts-rock-mumbai-on-ajmal-kasabs-24th-birthday-2260063.html?PRVNX=

Please check out this reference to Ajmal Kasab's Birthday.13-7-2011. Thank You. (Mamtapolicedhody (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC))


 * The first contains nothing at all that I could see. The second appears not to be a definitive source. I care only about the information cited in the references in the article, not one fig for opinion, conjecture or any other form of original research. You need to do the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First ever Reading Wiki Meetup
You are invited to the first ever Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at Copa, 76-78 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3BJ on Sunday 23 September 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Might be fun, but I live about 180 miles away :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't Pull Rank
"Commerce Raiding" isn't a euphemism, it's a standard part of naval vocabulary. "Piracy" has a lot of negative connotation, and implies illegality, which doesn't apply to privateering. Try reading some history for the period.

And don't fall back on "I know more than you do". It's contrary to wp:civ and not very logical.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you note
Hi, thanks for the motivation , much needed in wiki community. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Henchman
I don't know if I put this in the right place but I want to thank you for caring about the truth.

As I read your contribution, please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect, you the grasped  importance of one of the main issues at hand in the Jimmy Henchman discussion. This issue was that Dexter admitted to the ambush ON HENCHMAN"s orders. This latter part was deleted by Diannaa shortly following an edit dispute on her Combs page. And I believe it was you who corrected the article.

The orders from Henchman was key, the point of the LAT 2008 article that was placed in evidence in the court proceeding against Henchman by prosecutors as Peoples exhibit #1. Your effort reaffirms my faith in Wikipedia.

I will also update the Talk page with references to articles relating to Henchman's confession a year later  (reported in Late June but apparently occurring in 2011). The confession, according to prosecutors, was to involvement in the Tupac ambush at the Quad - that was documented by the Huffington Post, the New York Times and the Washington Post in addition to the original VV article. I will also reproduce transcripts from the Henchman court proceeding from May or early June. These are available on PACER but may not be easily accessible to those without an account. So while they are verifiable, and not copyright protected, I believe it's important for the lay reader to have this access.

BTW, the gist of the version I put up on the talk page has been there since June 5th or so when Henchman was convicted and had not been challenged until I tried to make a slight correction to Combs Wiki page, protected vigorously by Diannnaa, Malleus et al. BTW, the notion that I would be defaming Jimmy Henchman, someone just convicted on 13 counts (partly based on the prosecutors exhibit number 1 - Philips' article) and also someone recently indicted for murder, who is facing multiple life sentences, seems a tad absurd, but I'm sure you realized that. Thank you for caring about the truth.

I noticed that editors get symbols of gratitude here for courage or good editing here. I'd like to give you one. Do you know how I do this?

I do plan to look at the administrators page regarding Diannaa and her prolific efforts of the period from August 21 through 22. It's been an intense couple days in which she edited articles based on hundreds if not thousands of pages that I've read and am familiar with and have been there for months. In some cases she didn't even change what I wrote but simply edited a page I added to seemingly because I added to it, dinging the legacies of such uncontroversial figures as Robert Hilburn, simply because I added a small line. This in particular is distressing to me as I'm sure it would be to his many fans (and he he has virtually no enemies.) He himself is one of the most likable, knowledgeable and delightful people I've ever met. (As to Jimmy Henchman, I've never had the ..em, err, pleasure)

As you can probably imagine, to re-document all the articles Diannaa defaced will take some time and fortitude.

But I wanted to thank you most immediately for caring about the truth. That's we're here for. Scholarlyarticles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an interesting place. Truth is secondary to verifiable facts. Verifiability must always come from reliable sources, something that makes, for example, a blog report interesting, but wholly useless here. Wikipedia is not, you see, a news medium it is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia also must not ever infringe anyone else's copyright.
 * Having said that as clearly as I am able, please be assured that I am on neither editor's side in this dispute, not yours and not the other editor's, whose name escapes me for the moment. I am precisely neutral. You need to take that as my having no position on whether your opinion, the other editor's opinion, or another opinion should prevail. My position is that facts added to articles must be well authenticated, the more so when the subject of the fact is a living person. But that is the only position I will take in this article. I'm not sure why it is on my watchlist. I recall something vaguely in the dim and distant past. I have no idea who Henchman is, nor am I at all interested in him and his life.
 * My intervention has been simply to ask other, 'wiser than my own', uninvolved eyes to take a look at the article and the dispute you are involved in. I accept your thanks, though feel they are undeserved. I have grasped nothing about the points of the dispute, I have simply grasped that there is a dispute that requires a consensus based solution, and grasped that this is unlikely to be solved without other eyes.
 * Please understand, this is not and never will be about your edits or the other party's (from my persepctive). This is about seeking to resolve a dispute in order that the article benefts by becoming the more complete in a verifiable manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle Faddle and Timrent:: Below are two paragraphs I wrote with multiple references. The do not have copyright violations. (The previous paragraph I reinstated when Dianaa took it out was written before I got there.. I haven't reproduced the first paragraph here. Perhaps it was written by dxhiphop (which would explain why the wording was close). Here are the paragraphs I wrote and they are well documented. The original cite to Henchman confession was in a fact check VV article including the prosecutors transcript of the case. However, numerous other references exists to  the prosecutions transcript in the case reporting Henchman's secret confession in on o f  nine "Queen for a Day" proffer session.  I've included many of these new references here. As you can see, the Dexter confession has multiple sources. I added a few more sources to the latter report of the Henchman confession not only including VV which has a transcript from the court proceedings against Henchman. I also added Huff Post, hiphhopdx, smoking section, Rollingstone. I hope these five references are enough to reinstate the paragraphs: (I changed trio of thugs to "three thugs" in case trio sounded to similar to the original article as I remembered it.)

On March 17, 2008 Chuck Philips wrote a Los Angeles Times article stating that Henchman ordered three thugs to rough up Shakur. (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1:) The article, which was later retracted by the LA Times because it had partially relied on court documents which turned out to be forged, was thought to be vindicated in 2011 when Dexter Isaac admitted to attacking Tupac on orders from Henchman. . Following Isaac’s public confession, Philips corroborated Isaac as one of his key sources, thus supporting Philips' 2008 LA Times article. .

Henchman was also implicated in Shakur's attack in later articles which drew on Chuck Philips key research. Henchman's attorney excluded Philips from covering the trial by subpoenaing him as a defense witness, stating that Philips' article was responsible for his client's plight. However, Philips' 2008 LA Times article was placed into evidence by the prosecution (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1:) and Henchman was found guilty on all charges in his drug case on June 5, 2012. In a June 12, 2012 Village Voice, Chuck Philips reported that  according to the prosecutor of Henchman in his 2012 trial, Henchman secretly admitted to involvement in Tupac's ambush during one of nine "Queen For A Day" proffer sessions with the government in autumn of 2011. .

In the Village Voice piece, Chuck Philips points out that the new findings also support what Tupac Shakur rapped before his murder. In a song called "Against All Odds," Tupac blamed Jimmy Henchman for the assault at the Quad:

“Jimmy Henchman…

[You] set me up, wet me up…stuck me up

But you never shut me up.”

I thought it was important to include Tupac's rap because this is a key aspect of interest to the general audience about Jimmy Henchman - his involvement in the attack. The reference to People's exhibit number 1 is a PACER reference to the original article that not only implicated Henchman in the Tupac attack but was People's exhibit number 1 in the People Vs Henchman (on which Henchman was convicted on 13 counts and faces a life sentence.) I felt should be there for reference. . Respectfully Scholarlyarticles (talk)


 * I think I need to restate something


 * I am on neither editor's side in this dispute, not yours and not the other editor's, whose name escapes me for the moment. I am precisely neutral. You need to take that as my having no position on whether your opinion, the other editor's opinion, or another opinion should prevail. My position is that facts added to articles must be well authenticated, the more so when the subject of the fact is a living person. But that is the only position I will take in this article. I'm not sure why it is on my watchlist. I recall something vaguely in the dim and distant past. I have no idea who Henchman is, nor am I at all interested in him and his life.


 * I am not at all interested in your edits to the article, nor your rationale. I do not particularly want them on my talk page, either, but, unless someone else feels they violate the rules for biographies of living persons I am not going to remove them. If they do then they may, indeed they must.. I am not your friend, nor your enemy. I simply wish the dispute in which you are involved to cease. You do, however, have a great offer of mentoring on your talk page. Please take up that offer. It will lead you to greatness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then sorry to have included you in the discussion FF. I have included multiple references and the living person is a convicted felon on 13 Federal counts and now indicted on murder. He faces multiple life sentences. So perhaps he has fewer protections than the typical living person. So if that is your interest in this matter I hope it's satisfied with the paragraph supra and I won't include you in future discussions. On FF's other point, I would like to get help of a mentor if Timrent is available. Is that possible?76.89.155.100 76.89.155.100 (talk)Scholarlyarticles (talk)


 * I'm guessing that the IP editor is User:Scholarlyarticles. You need to understand signatures. I and Fiddle Faddle am the same person. one is my login and the other my signature. It happens. I am not part of the team which mentors people. Dennis Brown, however, does, and has made you a very generous offer on your talk page. Please take that offer up.
 * I see and feel your frustration. I have asked at WP:ANI for others to look at the edits and the dispute. My strong advice to you is to go to that discussion and ask in a very simple way for the help you hope to receive. I believe that help you as for should be for others to look at your edits to the article and make a judgement on their validity. Do not make a speech there. Do not paste the loads and loads of other stuff there, because no-one will read it. Just ask very simply and humbly for help. Be prepared either to be pleased or disappointed with the outcome, and abide by it in either case. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Zenith Computers (India)
— Northamerica1000(talk) 01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I obviously suffered from premature nomination :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IMDb
Hi Tim, a note on your revision of IMDb. A lot of editors question IMDb having any value, given that it is edited by volunteers, much like Wikipedia. IMDb refs are routinely removed for being too weak a source. They don't fly at all at GA. WP:RS/IMDB says "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." Plus, we are confusing our new editor. Span (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am out of date, then :) mea culpa. I was clear, though, that they must be backed up with reliable sources. Always been clear on that. I see nothing wrong with IMDB as a useful source, it is simply not authoritative. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stupid Question
Thank you for your help on the Hermann Braun article. Please continue to be patient with me. I’m old and this technology can be VERY intimidating. I only on a chance of using the edit selection to respond to talk found out today how to respond to talk. It actually worked!!! I didn’t know that. I really wish Wikipedia required a short tutorial both online and with You-Tube like demonstrations as soon as a person started typing on their first article. It would make your life easier and we contributors would all start with the same set of core knowledge. As it is now, we are left to sink or swim.

I am asking both of you (Fiddle Faddle and Span) a question. However, you are under no obligation to answer it. I am very perplexed. I just received a rejection on a new article because my sources were unreliable. With the addition of a few items (including a New York Times article and a book by a Harvard professor) and Internet Movie and Filmportal.de references (which I am working to replace with better sources), they are the IDENTICAL sources found in the German and Russian Wikipedia versions of this article. Those articles were acceptable. So, why isn’t mine and would it have had a better chance of being approved had I just translated the German article (I must rely on Google translator for Russian) and submitted that? I pointed this out to the rejector and I don't expect either of you to get involved in the fray. I'm just want your opinions, even if I'm in the wrong. J R Gainey


 * The answer is one that may amaze you. It is not the type of answer that would stand up to academic scrutiny, nor does it stand up to logic, so be prepared to hold up your hands in horror. Wikipedia is the way I am about to describe precisely because it is not a rigorous academic vehicle, but is a social experiment in the wisdom of crowds.


 * The answer is this. Each individual language version of Wikipedia is an independent version. The sources used and the contents of articles in each version, while they may feed from each other, may neither reference each other, nor may the rules under which the articles in each were created be identical. Each is 100% independent of the other; each makes its own rules; articles seen suitable for one may be seen as unsuitable for another.


 * I don't expect you to like that answer. I can tell you as well that it is not an official answer. It is very rare that Wikipedia actual has an official answer, because all decisions, save for those that have a legal impact, in any Wikipedia version are made by people like you and me: the editors.


 * Some editors are very bright. Some editors have partisan axes to grind. Some editors are insidious vandals. Some editors are intellectually challenged. Some editors suffer from delusions. Some editors are clinically insane. Each of those editors has an opinion here that is considered valid, and each has a right to be heard and have their opinion counted unless and until that editor's expression of the opinion is considered by a random peer group of other editors to be prejudicial to the conduct of the version of Wikipedia where they edit. Such is the social experiment on the wisdom of crowds that is Wikipedia.


 * The editors who approve or reject articles at Articles For Creation are no better and nor worse than you or I. They are normal, fallible human beings who have an opinion. The sole difference between you and them is that they have (probably) more experience of Wikipedia than do you, That does not mean they are correct. It means that, in their opinion, the article is either 'ready' or 'not yet ready' to be moved to the main namespace. Mostly they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. I am not going to comment about your article request itself. I am going to stay general.


 * Articles For Creation was set up, broadly, as a way of trying to ensure that every article that passes through it has an excellent chance of surviving a discussion in which it is proposed for deletion. Too many new editors were adding new articles that were shot down immediately because they were, for example, very poorly sourced. You will agree I think that an article without good sources, while it may be interesting, has no place in something that seeks to be an authoritative encyclopaedia. So the AFC project was set up to try to guide those wishing to create new articles but without the experience to do so into successful creation. Mostly it is successful. Sometimes it obviously fails to explain itself well. In the case of your request it appears that it has not explained itself well. What might hep you is a dialogue between you and the editor who suggested it was not yet ready (use the same mechanism that you have used to talk to me, and remember to signb your contribution on talk pages with four tilde characters thus, ~, whcih turn into your dated signature automatically.


 * Almost all the other editors you meet are excellent folk who will, in their way, offer you help. Almost any editor will offer you help when asked. Sometimes the help may appear to be brutal, at other times it will be like putting on a comfy pair of slippers and sitting by a log fire. So please keep asking for help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the answer. I told you I wanted to hear your thoughts whether I was right or wrong and I meant it. J R Gainey (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fathers and Mothers
Your comment on 'fathering' rather than 'mothering' wikipedia articles is just BRILLIANT. It should be amongst the 10 Guiding Principles of Wikipedia (I'm sure that, like me, you agree that this is a place for as few commandments as possible - if any.)

Thanks for a wonderful insight. John M Brear (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it isn't original :) I don't feel as if I invented it. But I thank you for the compliment. We should most definitely have as few commandments as possible. Regrettably that runs counter to the wisdom of crowds. In its wisdom the crowd invented bureaucrats, after all! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Stone Bond Technologies
We see that you have deleted Stone Bond Technologies from Wikipedia with input that the company/product is not significant. Since we are new at the Wiki environment there may have been some missteps in some of our links but this is no reason for deletion. In fact, this seems to be a rather targeted effort as our page was in the review, comment, edit mode within the review structure.

A few facts...

Our software technology is covered by multiple patents. The software dramatically changes the manner in which complex data integrations take place resulting in significant dollar savings for users. The size of a company (44 people) does not denote significance in any way. What a user can accomplish denoted significance. The fact that there has not been much written about the software or company also does not connote significance. I demonstrates the company likely invests in R&D rather than PR.

Finally, if Stone Bond does not qualify then neither do any of the following...

Composite Software Denodo Technologies Oracle - Data Service Integrator Informatica JBOSS - TEIID Data Virtualization OpenLink Software Radiant Logic VirtualWorks Group Adansys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbrinegar (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You obviously mistake me for someone who cares about your PR campaign for your non notable corporation. I suggest you desist and wait for true notability, not your PR efforts and press releases. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. It is not your brochure, nor your web site. It is an encyclopaedia.


 * For the record, I nominated it to be discussed for deletion. Consensus said that it should be deleted, not me. I didn't delete it. If you have concerns about the outcome of the discussions please raise those with the person who closed the discussion. You are entitled to have the decision reviewed, should you wish. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But I can tell you that the deletion went via a proper discussion, and after having looked at the original article I see no reason why any admin would disagree with the result of that discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither the deleted article nor the proposed article at AfC are more than Vanispamcruftisement in my view. If Stone Bond ever becomes notable then someone will notice and write about t. This trade puffery is an attempt by their VP of Marketing to create reputation by use of Wikipedia, and is wholly inappropriate. If he feels strongly about it I am sure he may nominate the other articles for deletion, I suppose. If they are notable and verifiable then they will stay, of not then they will go. What he has seen is the usual outcome of pushing one's own outfit. Somehow it is just not notable, despite paying his salary. He should concentrate on selling product. Wikipedia is not a place to do marketing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Le Bourgeois
I've responded to your concern at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Le Bourgeois. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That one simple change means the hook now attracts the attention of a broader audience. I wonder of this means I have reviewed your DYK? Somehow I doubt it. The rules seem to me to be rather more complex than I want to learn. It was hard enough simply submitting Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Upcott and wondering when someone might care to look at it!
 * I hope my small contribution has been helpful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in order for it to be promoted and to show that you have reviewed and passed it you need to use the subst:DYKtick template if you feel it meets all the criteria. Indeed the rules are complicated but generally if the page was created on the date it was nominated, the hook is less than 200 characters with the page being 1,500 characters or more and the hook's claim is backed up by the source used in the page then it's usually fine to pass then. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to use the template, set it out like this (see in edit view) Symbol confirmed.svg and that is picked up which leads to the article being promoted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since t appears valid, I have done my bit :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just to let you know, I had a look at your DYK nom and just thought I'd let you know that the hook is 44 characters over the limit. Just letting you know now so you don't get the "there is a problem with your DYK nomination" message left on your talk page about that when someone does review it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point well made. I believe I am now at 198 characters. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Upcott
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of gymnasts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kate Richardson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships
Hi Timtrent. I created this article at the time precisely because nobody had done before. I will try finding the results and create the most recent articles. Sorry for the delay in responding. Jonas kam (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. It took me but I created the articles of recent editions. Jonas kam (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Devita Saraf
Hi Timtrent. This is regarding the changes done by you on Devita Saraf wiki page. This is Just to ask you can you upload the image of Devita Saraf by Virz (talk). Vizr 10:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in this article save to ensure that it is of a high standard. I have no such image. To be fair I can't even recall who the lady is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of bicycling
Sorry for having reverted you there yesterday, I admit that a couple entries that you tagged are questionable. I just added some with a nice reference I found that covers a lot of the "expressions". Cheers! Mattaidepikiw  (Talk)  03:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Never concern yourself about reverting someone else. They might not have it right. I'm glad you are adding references. With them the article becomes more than useful and informative, it becomes authoritative. WIthout them it has questionable value. The article will move from a trivial dictionary of slang, to verifiable usage of jargon as references are added. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a whole bunch of references (and slang terms) to the list. Some entries will have to be trimmed, but I'm in no rush. (Well, who is around here? lol) Do you think it's enough to remove that banner atop the article? I'll certainly take some time once in a while to improve the article, the cycling season is over and I edit almost only about that. I prefer to stay out of Lance Armstrong related editing though, for obvious reasons. Thanks for your calm, collected way of dealing with things. I read your essay about cyber-bullying, it is a great article for a great topic. I'm quite past the age of cyber-bullying, but I can imagine the effects on a teenager, they are all clustered on Facebook and their ipods like it is real life. Happy to "know you, my name is Matt :) Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that, to set an example, you leave the banner there until every entry is a cited entry. "By our works shall ye know us" so to speak. But I'm quite content if you use your judgment to remove it when you see fit. As you say, no-one will die if things take a while to get sorted out. Ah, dear Mr Armstrong. I fear he believed his own publicity machine and then had to live up to it. In reality no-one could have achieved what he achieved without some help. Doping or not he achieved astounding feats, but cheating is cheating. I think we are back to "By our works..."
 * The article of terms deserves the hard work you are putting in. I can't recall, now, why I became interested in it. I suspect t was when the tour of britain came past my front door in Devon. I looked up a term or two and enjoyed a pasisng interes in the subject matter, I think. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He was the best of the cheaters, and like you can see in recent change I made today, I'm relaying what is reported. But I don't believe a word of it. I love cycling so much I wouldn't hurt it unless there is complete evidence. I ride here with my buddies, 15 hours a week. I fear all pro sports are as bad as cycling though, it's not really fair cycling is taking all the blame. People seem to forget the 80 BALCO baseballers. Pardon the outbirst lol. I will look at your essay in detail for sure, but don't expect it to be fast: in fact, I wondered why it was not "released" as I read it. It's possible to improve something that is average, but your essay is better than average, so I fear I may not be of much help. I came across a very moving story on the news on this topic, maybe this will inspire you further: Amanda Todd Cheers! Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't know anything about wikipedia's politics, but if you need me to back you for this text, of course I will, supposing it will have an effect. The only active user I "know" is Cs-wolves, and we are kind of very focused on cycling, as if this were Cyclopedia lol I'll support anytime, just ask. Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect it just needs someone to move it to the correct userspace, though I have no idea, and to suggest, somehow, that folk improve it. Amanda's tale shows many horrible errors by the adults who were supposed to safeguard her. Kids make mistakes. We need to protect them after they have fouled up and help them to move on in safety. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. If you are in no rush for your essay, I promise to take a very close look in the following week, although as I said, I certainly haven't been a victim, much less a perpetrator. Are you into cycling at all?  Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a spectator I am a supporter of cycling. As a kid I used to enjoy cycling, but was hampered by a second hand heavy botch of a bike and a Sturmey-Archer 3 speed hub gear! I don;t travel to watch races, but I enjoy TV coverage. I have cycled up Box Hill many years ago (The Olympic road race obstacle) and hated every yard! The essay can easily wait for your thoughts. it might go well at Wikipedia:Cyberbullying, or it might not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am reading it right now (just corrected a minor typo). Would you mind if I add something? Of course you can swiftly take it down afterward without even a thought of rebellion on my part. Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go right ahead. I own nothing and am not wedded to any of the words. IT is for editing and discussion. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the article you link to in your article since you made me aware of it. That makes a change, I think. I think also that your article is a great basis. I'll do what I can, given my chipmunk IQ and time window. Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  20:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The world needs more chipmunks :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the text is great, it tells people what to do if they encounter cyberbullying in a pretty detailed way. No further typos detected :P I think though that stating that the page is editable is not necessary, it's a no-brainer. I did not know that admins could delete edits so they disappear completely of the history, great to know! Also, maybe the PC users could take a screen shot? Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  02:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered about screenshots. Easy enough to do on PC and on Mac, and I imagine, on Linux. But what would they do then? Where would they send it? It can;t be uploaded or the thing starts again.
 * I suspect the next step is for someone to move it to Cyberbullying where it will get exposure and be changed radically. Should that be you, if you consider it ready for exposure, or me because of your kind words, or do we wait for a random passing stranger? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you should do it :) Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  09:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done it. It is now present at Cyberbullying Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, thank you for the barnstar! :) The bicycling glossary is quite fun to edit (explaining slang in encyclopedic fashion is funny), but I agree it needs references for each entry. Some are not really cycling related I think. I shall dig once in a while to find some. Any feedback on your article about Cyberbullying? Mattaidepikiw   (Talk)  00:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If I had more time I'd join you in playing with the glossary. Finding references is oddly enjoyable! Barnstars are fun. I should give them to folk more often. Random acts of kindness are a perfect thing to give. Be bold and kill off the non cycling elements. The Cyber essay seems to have had precisely no feedback. Odd, really. I abhor bullying. If you google my real name name you may find a youtube video that reflect my attitude to it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

English setter
Hi,

Thanks for sorting the merge banners; I'm sorry I didn't realise the correct procedures so just posted the comment on the talk pages. I've done a little bit of work on the Setter article and - depending on the consensus on the merge - may go on to include something within that article as well.

Sagaciousphil (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference Gita Press Publications estd.1923
I am myself an authority on Gita Press Publications (estd 1923- Gorakhpur ,India) by studying of the ancient texts,and have chosen two blogspots to authenticate my words. As we have the Trinity in Hinduism of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh ,so is the knowledge interspersed amongst various texts ,many times repetitive in various texts like the 18 Puranas.However Yajur veda "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda" , will authenticate what I have to say.It is however not available on the web.Nor do I know any link which will have the compilation of full Yajur veda. 59.178.151.133 (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who you are and what you are talking about because you have left me no context within which to fit this conversation. Wikipedia may absolutely not reference itself so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda is useless as a reference. References may be made happily to sources that are printed, in libraries, and in any and many places that are not online. Sources must be reliable sources.
 * I am pleased on a personal level that you are an authority. However, while you may cite yourself, that reference must be in a reliable source. Wikipedia does not care at all about one's reputation, it cares about verifiable and notable facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Research on articles leads me to believe this may be User:Mamtapolicedhody by accident logged out and using IP. I may be mistaken. Please do use your account, it makes life so much easier for everyone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Need Suggestion
Hi Timtrent, I am working on the article Chitlapakkam, a neighborhood in chennai, India. i don't know how to proceed, with new sourced info drying out. what should i do to move that to B-class? Please tell your opinion. Thanks a ton!--Challengethelimits (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Carry on doing as you are doing? I have no real idea I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I have responded to your request on Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of alumni of St. Stephen's College, Delhi.
 * 2) Have you considered updating your signature with your current username?


 * Thank you for performing that small task. With luck and a following wind we should get a better article from it.
 * My signature and username have been as they are since I joined. I had not understood that Wikipedia uses your login, and wished to be as my signature. By then it was too late. I had thought I wanted to be anonymous, but decided early in that I had no need of anonymity. I looked carefully and I am well within WP guidelines and policies so decided to let it ride. Since the links take one to the right place I think it a small matter, and i get asked about it once a year or thereabouts :)
 * Best, Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy "Bobs 'yer Uncle" Day or whatever it is that you call your Day of Thanks

 * Robert is, indeed, my mother's brother! :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Those hairy Latins
Thanks for the list. I my must admit that I am also throwing in the towel after consulting a Latin dictionary and Google translate my self. Just wanted to know that I appreciate the list (and the pond) even though I can´t make heads or tails of it. Feel free to delete this message after reading --JakobSteenberg (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Richard "Dicky" Suett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to William Parsons and Thomas Bridges

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ajmal Kasab recent death template!
Greetings, do you think we need that template there? All we can wait for some politicians' statements and expert analysis. I am quite sure the article will face get lots of non-constructive IP edits ahead. You can ask for semi protection if 5 or 6 more edits are reverted today! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should ask for semiprotection anyway. The template? Yes, it should probably be present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2-3 more reverts and we can ask for semi protection! I think we'll get 2-3 spam edits within next one hour. :-D Or you can go ahead now too. Only few admins will reject it marking "prediction of vandalism".. only few.. He has been hanged less than 6 hours ago! So, the main traffic is yet to come. Template:Recent death has some conditions which I never understand like Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the template's purpose., but, try to remove template when all information have been added (we are sure nothing is going to change) and death is not controversial, Not sure here! That's why I was asking. There are some inconsistencies in citations, like we have different citations to cite same thing in lead, body etc, but I am reluctant to do anything there right now!--Tito Dutta (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked anyway. There is such a backlog there that we can expect it to be vandalised to hell and back before anyone has the time to pick it up. The template is an arcane mystery. As such it may as well be present as not, if you follow me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya sure! It is helpful most of the times for a new contributor to approach a primary contributor (who is watching the article for a long time) and ask suggestions when they can not understand what to do! You are a primary contributor of the article! RPP timing depends on luck. I have had multiple pages protected within minutes! I can see there is at least 1 admin in that zone! So, he may protect it himself! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I never thought of myself as a primary contributor there, you know :) Toolserver cannot lie, but all it sees is my efforts at protecting from vandalism :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, 16 reverts! OR removal, copyedit Great work! (Barnstar follows)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I bow before toolserver and thank you in advance for the barnstar, which I am sure I do not deserve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, thank you! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cyberbullying
Help:Using talk pages does not say what to do when two users' talk preferences contradict each other, eg. I reply in sender's talk page! Anyway,

– Well not few, 846 page visits last month! You can include it in similar essays' see also section for more visits. Though 846 visits in 30 days for a Wikipedia article is not bad! You can add few relevant images (search in Commons or collect from Flickr, quick links to collect images and upload to Commons can be found here: Commons:User:Titodutta). I regularly read readers' feeback where they feel reading long essays with no images is a terrible thing! :-D --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * True, not so few. But no substantive edits, nor comments. I'm not really a self publicist. Hmm, relevant pictures for cyberbullying seem to me to be a hard concept. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see
...this (if the link does not work, go to bottom of the page and check unprotection requests) --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is Wikipedia. Odd things happen here. The requestor is as entitled to his opinion as are you or I, but ought to check his facts properly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

List of castes
Wrt this edit summary, perhaps take a look at the latest thread on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air Training Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: Mayoralty in Puerto Rico
&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning
Please take a closer look at what your reversion did. When you are done, could you please remove the warning from my talk page? --216.52.185.73 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ but by someone else. Wholly bizarre, and my apologies. Obviously my fault. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As the subject of the article is a minor, should we now be trying to contact Yousafzai's, or Fiddle Faddle's, last-known place of education, per WP:Cyberbullying? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta love irony :) It appears, though, that David Cameron was the subject of the accidentally reinstated abuse. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Stubbington House
Hi - I notice that you are adding Category:People educated at Stubbington House School to a significant number of articles. This is really useful information. It would be very helpful to add a source for this information. As it is not possible to add references to categories and you are clearly obtaining your information from an good source (Stubbington House school register perhaps?) would it be possible to record in the main body of the text for each of these articles: (i) the fact that they were educated there and (ii) your source. This is really useful material as the text on many of these people gives absolutely no information on their education. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point well made :) The information comes from a list entered in the school itself by another editor who has stated it comes from the school record. I confess I was previous in adding the information as category to folk. The next objective is to back the schooling by citations. I was previous to the extent that I chose to trust the (so far uncited) list. And I have done things like sleeping since. One of the problemns we face is finding sources since the editor added the whole slew of folk some time ago and that means every mirror and scraper site has picked it up and seeing the wood form the trees is hard. I wont take any offence if folk revert some or all of those additions pending citations. WHat I hope is that others will also pick this up and run with it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. It would be great if someone could find a copy of the school register. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a chat to the user who added the enormous list of alumni to the school article a month or three ago. You may stand a chance. Are you associated with the school in some manner? If so you stand a chance of finding the documents. They are primary sources, of course, but such sources have value here, despite not being the grade of authoritative we seek. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not associated with the school so I do not have access to a copy of the register. But I now see that some good work has already been undertaken adding who's who citations to the alumni list on the school article (thanks for directing me there). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cyberbullying
Hi Fiddle Faddle, I spend some time gaming different argumentative structures of your Signpost draft and posted the basic result. Sorry for the delay but I had to overcome a conference backlog first :), thanks & best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I know what you mean I can work on it some more. Thank you. I see your point entirely now. It is unlikely to be today. But there is no haste for this. Getting it right is far more important than rushing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne
I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stubbington House School
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SHS
I see that SHS managed around 2700 views yesterday. It wasn't one of those articles that could generate a really quirky hook, so I think that is a pretty good tally. Hopefully, when our friend who had an interest returns they'll appreciate what can be done. Thanks for nominating it. I've finally got hold of the elusive source for Eastman's Royal Naval Academy & will bolster that one in the near future. After that, I'm out of education articles for a while. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is rather an amazing number of views. Once I'd worked hooks out it was easy to nominate. The "musyt expand it before we can DYK it" rule is rather silly, I think, but there it is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a massive fan of the DYK concept, let alone the implementation. However, I cannot deny that as a new contributor there was a certain feelgood factor when Churchill Machine Tool Company was taken from an AfD to DYK in not a lot of time. The DYK spurred me to look further and, eventually, it became GA. It is not a great GA but I've got some irons in the fire for fettling that further! Anyway, as I understand things, the pour encourager les autres is quite a significant point for DYK and it certainly worked for me. In this instance, my reason for mentioning DYK was not to gain a bauble but rather to give a boost to the person who had spent a bit of time on it and arguably gone a little astray. It is not a great article and probably never will be: I shoehorned stuff in there that usually I would not bother with, and I suspect that you know this. On the positive side, there are not many non high school articles that survive at all and this one really did deserve to do so. Indeed, is probably more worthy than most of the "inherently notable" school articles that we do have. This was a joint effort and I appreciate the work that you have put into it. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the entire 'wisdom of crowds' thing amuses me in that the crowd has created a far more complex bureaucracy than any manager might have decided upon.Things are not inherently notable. The roads are not, the plethora of villages and hamlets are not, soap actors and actresses are not, and so forth. We then apply rules vigorously in some areas but not others because the people in each area prefer it that way. Much if this great edifice should be torn down, and categories are so badly implemented in the Mediawiki software as to be broadlt unusable in any real hierarchical sense. But the site amuses me :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks chaps
It looked like a lot of effort, and I missed it all. I expect someone will be back again, though. (see page history) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Email abuse suggestion
Hey Tim, I just noticed that NawlinWiki posted this suggestion at the thread on ANI: "Email me if you'd like the name of a law enforcement contact who has dealt with him before." Good luck with however you decide to proceed :). Regards, &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 11:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've dropped NW an email already :). I will simply add my complaint to the pile :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :). &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 12:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shrikanthv (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the advice and the spirit in which its given :) Irondome (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re thoughts

 * I had a brief look at the cyberbullying article, and the suicides section is only about 10 lines long. I think the phenomenon is important and worthy of recording, even at this relatively early stage in the history of social media. Ideal for Wiki. However, this is way out of my league, both technically, and in terms of subject area. However I would like to at least pass the idea on, and if editors more able and knowledgable run with the idea, then the project would be enhanced, IMO. The early sumnation and documentation of the problem is ideal wiki material, not least for its possible positive benefits among readers, although thats not our primary purpose. Thanks for your forbearance. Irondome (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm grateful for your feedback (which I imagine is on WP:CYBER). Do take the bull by the horns and enhance that essay if you are able to. SImply do not over-emphasise one outcome of cyberbullying. None of the outcomes are pleasant. Suicide is simply final. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
My thoughts on the deletion debate are simply that all notable and publicised cases of cyber- related suicide should be created on wiki as individual short articles, or none should. I suspect that the UK cases have recieved far less publicity purely due to our attitude here in England; a cultural thing maybe. That maybe in itself says something about differing cultural attitudes toward the problem. Dunno if there are any other cases with their own article on wiki. It is an outstanding article in its detail and cites, btw. Excellent work. The volume of material is vast and growing, so maybe the section on deaths could do with a little expansion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the UK has fewer cases, though probably the same number per capita. I think all notable matters of any sort should have an article. The issue is akin to Mae West: "So many topic to create, so little time!" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * exactly :) Lack of available wikitime is the main problem. Along with the occasional certifiably insane editor :/ Irondome (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And there you have Wikipedia. It is a massive social experiment which happens to create a reasonably worthwhile outcome. I reserve the right to be baring mad, otherwise I participate out of a warped sense of fun :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! I will drop user penbat a line later today. Hope to bump into you again mate. Cheers Irondome (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

STCW
Hi. You fixed some vandalism to STCW. Unfortunately you warned the wrong user (80.254.147.84) so I've removed the warning. Cheers, andy (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I blame Twinkle, or my finger trouble, or elves :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

King George's Fields pictures
I began to copy to Commons your pictures of King George's Fields plaques, gates etc, so they can be used on multiple projects. It resulted in a warning tag on Commons threatening deletion after 7 days, as you will see, and.

On other occasions the result has been that the relevant bot or whatever has followed the image back to its source on Wikipedia and deleted it there too, which is annnoying, and all because the permitted licence tags are no longer used as of 2011. Short of taking new photographs, are you in a position to regularise the licensing?

Hogweard (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I recall I was given permission to use these pictures by the organisation concerned and gained OTRS approval. I suggest we use admin help to solve the matter. I uploaded these ages ago and never retained the originals.


 * Please see the conversation above. Help is needed on en wikipedia for sure, and probably on Commons Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To me this looks like an imperfect move to Commons, probably with the use of an incorrect licence there. OTRS permissions are perfectly in place on the en WP versions of these files. This is outside my area of expertise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look, I'm admin on both and OTRS...  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I (or rather Hogweard) am (Hogweard will be) grateful. They could do with advice on how to prevent this from occurring in the future, I think, please. IT rather looks as though they may have fallen into a mantrap of their own construction. I may be wrong of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If it can be resolved, that would be great. The original locations on Wikpedia are:


 * File:KGVF-plaques.jpg
 * File:KGVF-stone-plaques.jpg
 * File:KGVF-bronze-plaques.jpg

Hogweard (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you moved two only. Or rather, I can only see two in your commons contributions page. Ronhjones has regularised the two I can see. Perhaps you might look at what they have done and migrate/regularise the third. I commend the use of Adminhelpme to you for situations such as this. Ronhjones deserves thanks, by the way :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed three images. Let me know if there's any more. It looks like a manual transfer (rather than using one of the transfer bots - I may be wrong). Commons is picky, only OTRS agents can put an OTRS permission banner on the page (I think some of the transfer bots have an exemption - not too sure as I've never moved one with a banner before being OTRS)
 * File:KGVF-stone-plaques.jpg
 * File:KGVF-plaques.jpg
 * File:KGVF-bronze-plaques.jpg
 *  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Malware-inline
I have been searching for a template, similar to Third-party-inline that we can use as part of external links or inline citations in order to flag the fact that a browser has noted that the destination site may contain malware. A valid name might be Malware-inline. Obviously the template will be applied manually. We rely on editors to use their proper judgment.

I suspect it would be useful for one of the template dating bots to apply a date to it as well.

I could create the simplistic template easily enough, but i would prefer an expert to create it well and with full documentation and integration into the dating bot.

It may be, of course, that the template already exists by another name. I have been unable to find it, so am asking for direct help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Per this guideline, we should not be linking to pages that have malware in the first place. If a site is reported to test positive for malware, then it should be delinked and replaced with a suitable, clean site. The idea of a template warning is nice, but it has a few flaws:
 * It would have to be applied universally if we wanted it to be effective (good luck virus-scanning the billion external links there are on the project)
 * We already disclaim that we are not responsible for the content of external sites. While we certainly don't want to link people to malware, ultimately, making a template like this would go against that disclaimer by making it seem that we're attempting to take responsibility for external content.
 * I hope my point seems coherent! If not, you're welcome to ask for clarification. Regards, m.o.p  03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your point is coherent. However I would like to take this a little further. Most editors have no idea what to do when a Malware site appears. I was unsure, as you can see. What would be useful is to allow those of us who are unsure to flag the link, and then have a bot do two things:
 * Perform correct delinking, leaving the original link surrounded by   tags and marking with a [link may contain Malware] label and flagging the need for a citation (like this diff as an example, though there is no category included)
 * Enter the page in a suitable category for expert attention
 * I note your thoughts of universality, and like the desire for this. I think that may be a bit of a side issue. I'm also not at all concerned about disclaimers. I'm more concerned about achieving correction in a universally more competent manner than we do today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the software that decides that a site is "Malware" actually reliable? I see lots of reports of false positives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have genuinely no idea. I know that browsers appear consistent in their flagging sites as suspicious, but consistency and reliability are different topics. Thus it is my view that the link can be improved and should be improved, but should be left in a manner that users can choose to follow it until it is replaced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I still don't think it's our place to warn users; we should just remove the link, per WP:EL. As I said, we don't take responsibility for the content of third-party sites, and we disclaim that officially. If we start warning people about some sites and not others, I feel we'll get a few confused/angry editors who stumbled upon a malware-infected link because there wasn't a warning template next to it, etc.
 * This is probably a discussion best had on WT:EL or somewhere on the Village Pump, to be honest. Something like this would need much wider consensus. m.o.p  09:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy for this to be taken elsewhere. I'll set the discussion up and leave a trail from here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has now migrated to WP:ET Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Kalochori
Adminhelpme

I was trying to untangle the mess of redirects and disambiguations surrounding Kalochori but to do so requires an admin, I'm afraid. The whole area has been tied in knots, and I suspect I didn't help either! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What edits are you requesting? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What I was attempting was to end up with a single disambig page. When I tripped over the area there were at leats 2. To be fair only one place is not redlinked, and I am quite content if all except that page are deleted. I had no other plan in my head. I was attempting to make a standard Kalochori (disambiguation) because it looked as if that was likely to be what was required. but redirect pages were in the way. Any plan you come up with is better than what was there before I started and what is there now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, this work is already complete; all that is needed is to remove the self-referential "see also" link at Kalochori. No merge is required as there were no un-redlinked terms in the second dab page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I can do that easily enough. It's not as tidy as it might be, but it will serve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Walstead School
in the note you left on Charliedrakew page you said

..."An approach to take might be to ask Maggie Dennis to talk to him as the liaison person".... any possibility of giving me an idea of how to connect me with Maggie Dennis GW thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.50.216 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maggie is User:Mdennis (WMF), and I suggest you leave a message on her talk page. I suggest most strongly that you open a personal account (ie not an account int he school's name, but in any pseudonym you wish or your own name), log in as that user, and leave a message on her talk page, signed with ~ (which are replaced by your username as signature). Maggie has a wealth of experience as a wikipedia editor and holds a position with the Wikimedia Foundation. If she is the wrong person she will know with certainty the correct person.
 * I realise you are concerned that the good name of the school has a wart on it with the Wikipedia article. Regrettably Wikipedia reports warts. It may not, however, utter a libel, which is the reason for the tenet of verifiability in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors resist most strongly removal of verifiable information that is deemed relevant to an article. I recognise that this was a passing unpleasantness (0.9 probability) and thus seems abhorrent to you and the school. What has to be determined, and determined by consensus, is whether the incident is notable and should be in the article.
 * Despite the fact that I have reverted your removal you may be surprised to hear that I have no strong feelings either way. I believe the incident to be unremarkable, but part of the school's history. My reversion of your removal was based upon policy (no removal of cited facts without comment and consensus) not upon any interest in seeing the incident in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised this on Maggie's talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

many thanks for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.50.216 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just tested how hard it is to communicate from an anonymous account. Please do create an account. you will be far more easily able to communicate with others from it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Securing the Reformation
Hi Timtrent, You gave me a Barnstar for one of my edits, thank you. I wonder if you would like to comment on a disagreement I have on the John Calvin page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Calvin#Securing_the_Reformation Markewilliams (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An initial look tells me I am out of my depth. I will consider again, but I feel, at present, unable to ad value to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was right. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

reminder - requesting oversight or revdel
... should almost always be done privately, not at a (potentially widely watched) noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is when the matter is more overt anyway, but thank you for the reminder. The location I used appears to have failed anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Holla at the DJ
Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Holla at the DJ, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to records. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My fault. I read it as "Holla the DJ" and as a person. Shit happens. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

discouragement
i will not be discouraged.i am new around here can you adopt me.spicemonkey 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeysdonteatspice (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DC's commentary
Actually, my edit summary is completely called for because it is quite accurate. Talk pages exist to further discussion about article subjects. DC's anti-Commons agenda is not relevant to the Suicide of Amanda Todd article. Per WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM, I removed it. And I would ask you to undo your reversion. DC knows where the proper forums to discuss the policies of Commons are. Resolute 23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am uninterested in motives you attribute to DC for raising the question. It is a relevant question. I can make the reversion, but I will then ask the question myself. I have no crusade for or against Commons. It ought not to be relevant who asks the question, but it has been asked and is valid.
 * I also do not find your edit summary there to be appropriate. That is my view, and I accept that others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me ask you then: How is Commons' policies relevant to the Amanda Todd article? Resolute 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I find this a strange way to phrase your question. I don't care about Commons policies. Let us assumes that there is such a picture on enWikipedia. I'm sure there is, somewhere. If it is not then it is doubtless used here from its location on commons. The discussion is not now and never had been until you derailed it, about the policy, but about whether all such images are child porn and thus a bad thing.
 * To me you are using an argument calculated to derail the discussion, and not addressing the actual and germane point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head, actually. "I don't care about Commons policies."  Except, that was the point of DC's post.  To turn a discussion about the merits of a wikilink - not even an image mind you, just a wikilink - into a platform to complain about Commons.  The discussion "about whether all such images are child porn and thus a bad thing" is likewise not relevant to the Suicide of Amanda Todd article.  If DC wants to discuss the merits of what Commons hosts, and whether en.wp should reuse it, they know the right forums.  WP:IUP WP:VPP being two here. commons:COM:VP being one there. An article talk page is not the place for policy discussion of a separate Wikimedia project. Resolute 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are discussing apples and I am discussing oranges. However pleasant it will be to continue with random fruit it will have to be after I have embraced sleep and then gone about other business on the morrow. I have no expectation of your acknowledging that I have no interest in DC except to be polite to him and to agree or disagree with him, or you, in a spirit of comradeship. After all I know neither of you. I do not find your argument compelling. I do believe that when you accuse another editor of pointiness you should also show them the discussion and allow them to make whatever defence they wish. Please make free with my talk page in order to do so Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I realize you are AGFing on DC's motives. That is commendable when you lack background experience with someone.  Myself, I know the history, and I know the agenda, so I've no need to assume. I also know the policies surrounding acceptable and appropriate use of talk pages.  WP:POINT arguments about unrelated axes one wishes to grind is most certainly not on the list. We may ultimately have to choose to agree to disagree.  Have a good evening! Resolute 00:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolute is correct in the respect that I have openly criticized aspects of Commons (,, & ) and certain Commons admins, but I am not anti-Commons - I simply feel that it has moved so far from its stated mission and is so dominated by a handful of ideologues that it is now almost hopelessly broken. My comment on the Amanda Todd talk page, however, is clearly a thought exercise to illustrate the flawed reasoning of those who wish to add an inappropriate category and not a comment on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From my perspective I agree with the relevance of your comment to the Todd article. Commons is a place I venture rarely. I have no competence there :). I took and take your comment at the Todd article at face value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, DC, the talk page of an article is not the appropriate place for you to push your Commons agenda. You know the proper forums, but as always, you don't seem willing to use them.  Resolute 20:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone but you seems to be able to understand that my comment has nothing to do with Commons, Resolute, so I'm not going to spend any effort trying to change your opinion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)