User talk:Fæ/2012

Daniel Tammet and Outprice99

Hello, I am very sorry to bother you, I have never edited wikipedia before, but wanted to talk about something that was bothering me. Today I read Joshua Foer's book Moonwalking with Einstein, and was shocked about the claims about Daniel Tammet. I have been interested in him for some time due to a love of neurology, but after a certain number of points raised in Foer's book, I will admit I was confused. I turned to wikipedia to try and find any mention of the sources which were mentioned in the book, to try and sort thing out, but suprisingly there was no mention of any of them, the only mention being a single psychologist saying the books claims were a mis-step, without providing any reasons or resources. I turn to the talk page, and I find a single user, outprice99, consistently battling any attempt to add any of these sources to the article. The thing that bothered me wasn't that he was disagreeing with it, because I am trying to come to sense of it myself and would welcome any information on the subject, but that he blocks claims by calling them "fringe theories" and claiming that they don't deserve space in the article. He does not seem to provide solid counterarguments to those presented, only claims that Foer's book is hostile and minority. He then claims that his book is adequately represented in the article when every single claim from the book has been filtered out.

I started looking at the editing history of the user, and I cannot find a single article written on anything other than Daniel Tammet. His entire history seems to be devoted to the subject. I wanted to send you this message personally so that there wouldn't be any controversy if it were not the case, as I think your point was valid to the person suggesting Tammet could be outprice99. But every statement that the person makes seems to be efficiently oriented towards making sure an edit does not occur which Tammet stakes quite a claim on, considering the large amount of money and fame he has built up due to his public perception. But I don't know how all this editing works as far as COI, and so I just wanted to send this message to you to suggest it as a possibility that maybe should be considered.

I am sorry if all of this seems kind of rash, but it is rather sad that it has to be reduced to this. A single user calling a book a conspiracy and inflammatory has completely removed my ability to even know that this criticism exited until today. If you look at what is actually being claimed about Daniel Tammet, it is essentially no different than the sorts of things claimed about Uri Geller, Kevin Tredau, and various others who have claimed vast powers for themselves. But if you ask yourself what it would look like if Uri Geller tried to suppress any contrary opinion about his 'magical' abilities, it would probably look something like this. Please look into it, so I can go back to enjoying my favorite encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.144.111 (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is related to a long running dispute on the discussion page for the article. I see you have raised a question at Talk:Daniel_Tammet#Third_Opinions_Please and I suggest you expand your comment there. In long discussions there are many benefits to having a named account rather than using an anonymous IP address. As a number of anonymous IP users have contributed already to the discussion, in this case it is likely to cause more confusion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

St Cuthbert Gospel

I uploaded one of the BL images of the cover that CB had sent me, & is also on their press pack. I uploaded it here with a promotional fair use licence, and BL links, and immediately: 00:01, 30 December 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg" ‎ (F4: Lack of licensing information).

Can you do anything about this? Ta

Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sure, I'll look into it. --Fæ (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done with agreement of deleting admin. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ninong Ering issue

Hey,

around dec 7 2011, I edited the page for Ninong Ering, adding a link to the video on youtube, which the page mentioned was not available anywhere. this was reverted automatically by Wikipedia. Also some later information which I edited was reverted, which was very surprising, since information i added was completely verifiable. Especially the youtube video was something that was publicly available. while the reverts themselves were surprising since the information i added was verifiable, what was even more surprising is the receiving of a vandalism level 1 warning. i was wondering which of my actions deserved this warning. i have also put in effort to read quite a bit of rules of wikipedia, am i still missing some rules ?

It.for.ax (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ninong Ering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi It.for.ax, the issue is making highly negative claims in a biographical article that are poorly or weakly sourced. I suggest you take a careful look at the quality sources available that do mention this event (rather than something uploaded anonymously to youtube) such as The Times of India or perhaps MSN News. For controversial articles, it is often worth explaining what you would like to add on the article talk page first, seeing if there is any feedback for a day (for example it may have previously been removed) and then adding the material mentioning your talk page proposal in the edit comment.

I'm sorry you got caught out trying to add what seems supportable material to an article, however the policy Biographies of living persons encourages a default position of removing any apparently badly sourced critical material on sight and then talking about it afterwards if necessary. Please also be aware that such negative material needs to be presented with appropriate weight to avoid putting over-emphasis on recent events that may have no tangible long term impact.

Don't be discouraged, have a good look at the sources suggested above, explain what you are trying to do on the article talk page (which already mentions this as a controversy) and have another go. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Thank you for the response. Given the politics of India, there are many instances when media does not report crucial items, like Radia tapes etc. in mainstream media, specially the ones mentioned by you. Again, I personally watched the video available on youtube (why does it make a difference if it is uploaded anonynously as long as the video is clearly genuine) before referencing it. I personally believed that the intent of wikipedia was to make correct information available. have been editing for over 3 years without an account so far. recently created an account, but looks looks like the wikis and the rules are getting too complex. the beginning of the end a good thing. :((

Cheers, carry on It.for.ax (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) thanks for replying. happy editing.

Orch-OR

I have only just noticed your 2 October 2010. You ask people not to take offense, but that does not justify a deliberately offensive manner on your part Actually I think I was trying to make some stylistic changes that had been called for, possibly by you. You may not like or understand the material in this article but that does not justify abusive claims of vandalism. Persephone19 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Quantum_mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user page notice related to Quantum mind rather than Orch-OR. Adding Skype highlighting haphazardly within citations is not a "stylistic change". The change was here - diff - and it would be apparent to anybody that this was unhelpful and the standard notice you recieved about it here, and have apparently read 1 year and 3 months, later seems perfectly civil. If you would like to understand more about how such notices are used or how to avoid automatically adding Skype highlighting during your Wikipedia edits, please ask for help at Help desk. As for jumping to conclusions about whether I like or understand the material and this being a motivation for my actions, please assume good faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ho Yan Hor Herbal Tea

An article you made serious cuts to some time ago has been restored to its unsourced/non-neutral version. I was going to clean it up to remove some of the non-neutrality and lack of sourcing, but I thought you might wish to intervene first. Your edits are here, and the restoration of the old content is here. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 20:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought about rolling back, but I'm not sure it's that simple. The article has a real problem being single-sourced, however, I think this can be resolved by improvement rather than just cutting it back to a stub as I suspect reasonable mention in sources (esp. non-English) can be uncovered. I agree that the non-neutral text needs to be trimmed. Bit busy, so I'll probably not get around to looking further. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Text Retrieval Conference

Hi Fæ, I'm still hoping to get your feedback on the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) article -- see question in talk page. If you agree that the citations have been improved, we'd like to remove the notability flag that you attached. Perhaps of interest to you and other Wikipedians is the new session in TREC about algorithms for recommending edits to Wikipedia jrf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Sorry I was so late in returning to this. I have removed the tag based on your improvements. I remain a bit unconvinced about conferences but this is probably an issue for the lack of good guidelines in this area. The article is obviously created in good faith and I hope you continue to work on it to make long term impact on the historic record as obvious as possible. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Behavior mutation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Replication and Locus

Chen Wei (artist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chen

William Drenttel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metropolitan Transit Authority

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What an unnecessary notice, the designer never thought of DTTR. It is rather annoying as in these cases I converted inter-wiki links to local links and did not actually add the link itself to the article. Guess I am forced to add the surplus code {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} to my page header. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

H&R Block

Hi Fæ, I'm hoping to discuss the flag you attached about the changes to the H&R Block page. I made edits today to update a sorely outdated page.

I moved the 2 former business units, Financial Advisors and RSM McGladrey, from the Business section to the history section. That content doesn't appear to be promotional in nature.

Also the products section only listed one product, so I added from the current annual report the other products. When the flag was added, I deleted the descriptions in case they seemed promotional in nature.

Can you provide any background on what you think still needs to be improved? Or if you agree the product section was the issue and now has been improved, we'd like to ask to remove the flag that you attached. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.23 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• H&R Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can see you already removed the advert notice. It is not unusual to wait for more than 3 hours for a reply, other contributors are not necessarily available for 24 hours a day. I may return for a more detailed look, but I am glad to see the spammish detail that you previously pasted on the product range has been trimmed down to a simple list. However, you may want to seek advice at WP:COIN as you appear to be directly involved with the organization the article is about. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did wait several hours but understand that you're not sitting at your computer 24/7. I only made the edit to remove the notice because I made the change in response and reached out in good faith to open the discussion to make the improvements. The content wasn't intended to be "spammish," but meant to describe the product/service as the name likely won't stand alone. I did make an extra effort to review and follow the Wikipedia guidelines, that any edits were to update outdated information only and seemingly non-controversial edits. I saw on WP:COIN that the "conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject." Thanks for the reply, and I'll watch for any additional feedback. There is still some outdated information but I'll wait to confirm the information from today is considered in good standing. Thanks for the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks1971 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Fæ, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a huge scary topic. I'm afraid that religious articles tend to cause a lot of heat and this particular Pope is recent enough for that to still be a worry for me. Thanks for asking though and good luck with getting the review banked. --Fæ (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

I have raised the question of banning Kuiper for outing, if your allegations are true, at both here and Commons. Please comment at WP:ANI here, and also at Commons if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll email you a link to the relevant material. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you don't have email enabled. Please email me if you want a link. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even want to know who he tried to out. I would prefer that you go to the ANI page here (and on Commons also, if you want) and solicit the help of another admin. I am not an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, personally I try and steer clear of ANI. I'll pass the information to another person to take a view on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Hang in there. You definitely do not deserve the personal and horrific comments thrown at you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you for all the hard work you've done.

LauraHale (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry this is happening to you

What you are going through is simply beyond awful. It's gruesome enough to watch. It really is a slow motion poofter bashing. That said, you are conducting yourself with great dignity. Many have forgotten that you are not really a Wikipedian or an Administrator or anything like that. You are a person. With feelings and all that stuff. Whatever happens, I want you to know that somebody understands that. I really am very sorry. I wish I could do more. --MtD (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The time and thought you've given to Wikipedia proves how much you care about it, I sincerely hope you can disengage your feelings now and watch with a degree of detachment as all this manoeuvering plays out. It's very upsetting because you're a great admin, but it doesn't matter because - as Matty says - your actual life is what counts. Exok (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ

I am letting you know that a discussion about you and your actions being extremely similar to a possibly past account operated by you under User:Ash has been opened. I am an uninvoved editor who is not participating in this but I thought you'd like to know that your account was created around the time User:Ash quit. Should this former account not belong to you, it is best you comment here immediately as this seems very suspicious. I thought it be best to let you know about this.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 513,185,877) 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I in fact have just received an invitation to this today, myself. [s]At this point I do not recall where I discussed something to do with you, but am attempting to find this out.[/s] (I have since found out it was from a WP:AN discussion in archive 712, where I merely commented to another user moreso than on the thread itself. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]] However, as you never received a notification yourself on initial skimming of your pages (of course you may have removed the notice from your page for all I know), I am letting you know that this has existed for three days now and your visit to the RfC in question would be encouraged. CycloneGU (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish you the best

I am very sorry that you are subjected to attention that must be painful to you. Although I believe that it would be best for Wikipedia if you were to relinquish your administratorship, my belief is not based on your sexual orientation. I hope that you will stay an active editor, and will continue contributing on a wide range of topics including LGBT ones. I deeply regret the personal anguish that I am certain you must be feeling at this time. I appreciate all of the positive things you have done for this worthy project and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe anyone would write such a note

Fae, is arguably one of the top Wikipedians in the UK. He represents the UK in the Houses of Parliment and talks to major institutions on behalf of the movement. He enjoys the trust of everyone who knows him. There appears to be a group of editors who are creating a witch hunt for the smell of a conspiracy. Fae has many supporters who do not like to lower themselves to debating with these people. We also spend a lot of time editing rather than debating trivia. If we allow good editors and people who fly the flag fot the movement to be driven from our midst then the process is wrong. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Correct me if I got this wrong, my view of this whole debacle now is that the people who are waging this new campaign against Fæ is against him holding an authoritative position on Wikipedia and to some extent... Wikimedia. If we simply let Fæ step down from his official position, we'll know what other games these detractors are actually up to... or, that their main grievance was exactly what I've stated herein. Again, just my 2 cents. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"If we simply let Fæ step down from his official position," we'll sacrifice the effectiveness of the community and organisation and satisfy those who are on a witch-hunt for whatever reason. Doesn't seem like a good idea. Let's see what the RFC process yields. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, doesn't look too good. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two specific viewpoints that somewhat clash with each other. The one calling for Fae to hold a reconfirmation RfA seems to be winning out, which is natural since it was created a full day before the other viewpoint. We need to let the entire RfC play out, however, and see what the final decision is on what will be done. I have personally argued that, if anything were to happen, the most that can be done at this point is to argue for a desysop. This is typically based on administrative behaviour, and I recall a WP:AN discussion about Fae leading to this RfC.

Note also I have no prejudice against this user's sexual orientation. That is none of the community's business, frankly. CycloneGU (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, it is none of the community's concern but keeping quiet about past facts and issues does play into the part of "coming back to haunt" when one least expects it. Not that I doubt Fæ's competence as an Admin but laying one's indignant past stark naked in-front of the cynical mass would have helped win some supporters and gain some good will in that process, it would have been a more sensible thing to do if one is to not expect to carry around hidden baggage, or as some call it... a time-bomb that will go off once triggered. That is indeed unfortunate but I guess one has to live with one's decision in not doing something sometime, no? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about your RfA

I apologize in advance for raising a matter that may be unpleasant. I am asking you this question here on your talk page as it does not depend on the context of the current RFC/U and the concerns raised by others there. You stated in your RfA that you took the option of a clean start after an RFC/U. Your use of the word "after" could reasonably have lead RfA participants to believe that the RFC/U had run its course before you began editing under your current username and stopped using your old account. Such an action would be seen more favorably than a scenario where you stopped editing with your old account while an RFC/U was underway, avoiding scrutiny and possibly causing the RFC/U to fail or to be put on hold.

Was the RFC/U that you mentioned in your RfA in fact completed when you made your clean start, or not?

As I am not asking you to identify any previous account, I consider this a proper question which the policy WP:ADMINACCT obliges you to answer.

Thanks. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, this also forms a viewpoint by ReverendWayne in the discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Fæ, keep up all the good work, and don't let the bastards get you down! I notice that while the bloodhounds have been expending all their time on this ugly campaign of hatred, you have managed to continue with the real work of Wikipedia, quietly and with dignity. You have a phenomenal record of new page patrolling and fighting vandalism, and you have made many invaluable contributions to GLAM outreach; these are the things that you should be judged on, not what you may have done in a previous existence. BabelStone (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I will second this FWIW. I in fact fear what kind of precedent this recent crap could set for WP:CLEANSTART and how this could affect future admin. requests, and such, on the English Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement with regard to Karrine Steffans article

This was my statement by email to John Vandenberg by email on the 21st July 2011: "Steffans was highlighted via IGLOO, due to a 'references removed' tag and ended up on my watch-list back in January [2011] after I reverted the anon IP vandalism and then ignored until April when it was vandalised again. It's not the sort of article I would have noticed otherwise. I completely agree that I allowed myself to go on to get wound up when engaging in discussion and failed properly to follow my own advice of DENY, actions that I certainly regret and missed the opportunity to set an example that would have helped the situation."

Could I reverse the clock, I would leave a conciliatory apology to summarize the reasons for my withdrawal with Aaron Brenneman rather than just ending the discussion. I take this opportunity to make a personal apology to Aaron if he felt the matter was unresolved and he was left unhappy with the outcome. If he has any recommendations for further improvement for my contributions I would welcome them.

As others have observed, the related dispute about sources got heated and it could have been handled better by me. I have made 84,584 edits as Fæ and a further 20,952 by bot over the last 21 months, including a large number of biographies and some contentious ones such as Dan Savage and Yolanda Soares. I hope that these demonstrate that this incident was a rare slip away from exemplary contributions that are fully in line with our shared principles of the Five pillars.

I feel I have learned a lot by devoting so much of my time over the last 2 years to the projects, and would like to have the chance to continue making contributions here to the overall good. I would hope to be able to do that whilst being open about being in a civil partnership and having my full legal name on the public record as a trustee of the Wikimedia UK charity. I recognize that it is a very sad fact of life that being gay and an unpaid charity trustee, undesirable elements might always find anonymous ways to shout "faggot", I may always be sent material lobbying for gays to be put to death, I may have details of my personal life and that of my husband ridiculed and I may continue to have false allegations and personal threats published off-wiki and emailed to organizations I work with. I do not expect gay people and those that contribute to LGBT topics on the Wikimedia projects to be treated in such a vile manner on a regular or routine basis, I hope our collaborative space on the internet can be felt to be a safe environment for all contributors who share the vision of preserving knowledge for the public benefit. I reach out to you to make that possible. Thank you --Fæ (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, don't be daft. No one cares about you being gay. I certainly don't. I think some of your keep decisions in Commons are iffy. You keep too many bloody penises! I think you've made some bad and needlessly provocative choices in the past about what images to display on your user page. I think using a video-streaming porn site as a source in Steffans' BLP was really off, and cruel. Wasn't her predicament much the same as yours? If you owe anyone an apology, it's probably Karrine. Perhaps consider giving adult entertainment topics a wide berth?

I think you have painted an over-optimistic image of Wikipedia's BLP performance to the Parliamentary committee. You've been over-aggressive in your response to criticism, and/or others have been over-protective on your behalf. You've been too quick to shout homophobia when perhaps the criticism wasn't about you being gay, but about a lack of transparency, and perceived special treatment. Admins deleted your uploads when it became an embarrassment, but we don't delete other uploaders's stuff in the same way when they have regrets later on: and we should. Those are all things I would criticise. But you being gay figures nowhere in that landscape. We briefly met a few weeks ago at Sue's talk. Relax. You seemed like a nice, warm, friendly bloke in person, and smart with it. I enjoyed talking to you. And I for one am really sorry if this has been a harrowing and stressful experience for you and your husband. Regards. --JN466 09:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You tell Fae not to be daft, and then you get it completely wrong because Fae does not have the ability to decide what is kept or deleted on Commons. The Community does. And once the Community has reached consensus, an admin takes care of the deletion or keeping; something that Fae does not have the ability to do on Commons. You also make comments in relation to deletion of uploads; you are generalising too much, and you should not be doing that, because without knowing the full facts, you are likely to get it wrong. Which you have. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had something more to say than "I'm sorry." I really had forgotten how degraded discussions get during what passes for dispute resolution. I certainly have had episodes of sub-optimal performance, the K.S. discussion was one for you. But I said then and keep saying that it was out of character for you. I looked then and I looked again now, and I'd go so far as to say wildly out of character.

I've also looked back at my ANI comments of 18 July 2011, and feel like the only thing I'd change would be to add "so let's cut the guy some slack" as the end of the sentence "It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ wasn't that long ago."

I can try to give myself some small comfort in thinking that this was going to bubble up anyway, regardless of my improper certification. But (even though I think it would have) that's a pretty cowardly way for me to try to back away from my mistake. All I was trying to do was say "I've looked, and there does not appear to be a problem here." But I should have looked harder at what was happening past the end of my nose.

I appreciate you giving me the chance to say this.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever imagine...

Did you ever imagine that after my being your chief critic and the lead of the opposition to your RfA, that I would be your chief defender and lead of your defense in your RfC? Now, I don't know how you've been as an admin over the past year---People are speaking on your behalf and no meaningful evidence of abuse has been presented---so I'm assuming you've done an adequate job. But I do find the dichotomy of the two times we've interacted to be interesting.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was clear in my RFA that a discussion challenging and improving the clean start policy would be a good idea. I don't really see it as a dichotomy, I always respected the alternative point of view and was happy to have it expressed in my RFA and would have accepted that at the time as a reason for rejection. I now deeply regret sticking to my values by openly declaring a clean start as part of my RFA. Sadly, I would find it hard to advise any prospective admin to be so scrupulously honest in the future, particularly if they might take an active voluntary role in the work of the chapters. I would be surprised if Arbcom would now give the same advice they gave me before accepting an admin nomination. As for my use of the admin tools, anyone who takes time to examine my work in detail will find the tools used carefully and consistently, taking advice when needed. Considering the intense scrutiny my contributions would have had over the last week as part of the hunt for evidence of any "evil doing", I am confident that has already been demonstrated. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom did not advise you. Arbcom didnt know about you until 6 March 2011 and the RFA was already live on 14 March 2011‎. Arbcom's only response was to acknowledge receipt of your email. The RFA was live before they could possibly have properly analysed the cleanstart.

I did advise you. I privately told you that "You should also assume, at all times, that all of your previous accounts and anon edits will at some point be outed." and I gave you one of many examples of how you could be outed. So far I havent see any evidence that you're a bad admin. However you have not understood that cleanstart depends on you not connecting your new account with your old account, as you have been adding to the collection of data which connects Fae to your old account. You need to accept that it was your actions since the RFA which have been at odds with your desire to keep Fae separate from your old account. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

John, this is a little disturbing, in and of itself. The representation during the RfA was that you at least had vetted Fae somewaat... now we are finding out that you didn't know him until after the RfA started. I think you fought too vigorously on his behalf during the RfA and allowed him to appeal to ArbCOM a little too strongly. If you had made the above statement during the RfA rather than statements to the effect that we accept your word/integrity, the RfA might have gone different;y. You put yourself out for Fae and really put your reputation on the line for him... which brought a lot of credence to his side. Now it seems as if you are back pedalling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) NOTE I hope this is legible, am typing without my glasses, so I can't read a word of what I've written.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I made it very clear that arbcom was not involved in the RFA.[1] I personally did go though the contributions of Fae and Ash to the level I thought was necessary in order for me to support his RFA. I looked at the old RFC, and couldn't see any significant occurrences of BLP sourcing problems in Fae's contributions. I was comfortable supporting him being granted sysop based on him having fundamentally changed his motivations for contributing to Wikipedia. Lar also looked, but he has become less engaged in Wikipedia so I doubt he has been monitoring. So far there has only been one similar problem by Fae (that anyone has found), and he has now acknowledged publicly that it was an error on his part. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry John, my first email to you was on the 8th January 2011 (I left a YGM note on your Wikipedia user page for it on 4:47 pm, 12 January 2011) in which I asked you "Perhaps you might be able to lend a hand with confirming (or indeed not confirming) whether my edit history prior to my clean start as User:Fæ poses any issue with RfA?". I also stated "If you do offer to investigate my prior account I would be happy to follow your advice on how to handle RfA or defer the idea. I previously contacted NewYorkBrad at the beginning of December about the same issue and he offered to look into it but has not replied to a follow-up email and so I have to assume he's been too tied up to get back to it." You responded to that email on 27 January 2011 and I explained my past account to you on 28 January 2011. There should also be a record of the email from PhilKnight on 5 March 2011. In your email to me on 5 March 2011 you stated that you had looked into in since January and reviewed the case in detail during the past day, which I read as you looking into my case and my past account as far back as January 2011, though perhaps I misunderstand you? Please check your records. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, would you please write a response to the RfC, if you haven't already, then answer any questions the respondents there would ask you, either on the main or talk page? Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When the fundamental criteria of "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed" is met, then I will consider adding a response. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you are hoping the RfC gets deleted instead of trying to forthrightly deal with the allegations it presents? Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Sorry, I can see no benefit in entering into a dialogue with anyone who is taking an active part in Delicious carbuncle's multiple Wikipedia Review discussions about me that amount to nothing less than off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, attacking Delicious carbuncle's credibility is called ad hominem, and it is a logical fallacy. I'm asking you to address the issues that he has brought up, and others at the RfC have agreed deserve an explanation. Please respond to the allegations with your side of the story, then please answer any follow-up questions. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what you are contesting. You did approach NYB and I prior to that, but neither of us had time to look at it. You didnt inform Arbcom until 5 March, and PhilKnight merely acknowledged your email to arbcom-l. I did start to look at your account history properly on March 5-6 and decided to assist in a personal capacity by recommending that you go and talk to Lar. In our one-on-one discussion I told you that Arbcom would not be involved more than to simply log the new and old account, without any analysis done. I made sure to inform the community of this as well. I'm just making it clear that Arbcom didnt opine. I did. I'm OK with what I did, as I tried to not lie to the community, but I'm listening to the community too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick John. I obviously am making undue assumptions about what forms the record for Arbcom or how Arbcom processes work. I had thought that my emails discussing and reviewing my possible RFA to NYB and yourself before 5 March 2011 counted as contacting and discussing my RFA with Arbcom members. If you count these as off the record personal emails that's fine, but I believe that this distinction was not pointed out to me until now.

I appreciate your comment about the community and I would fully support any process for consensus building. At the same time Russavia's comments about what happened last month when an apparent travelling circus coordinated through Wikipedia Review successfully de-railed my Wikimedia Commons RFA should be taken into account to ensure any process is a fair representation of the community view. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that this little exchange between the two of you occurred here on WP, because Fae definitely lead the RfA voting community to believe that ArbCOM was informed and the impression during the RfA was that you guys had reviewed the case. This dialog does indicate that while the facts of ArbCOM's involvement/signoff on Fae's RfA may have been mischaracterized, it doesn't appear that Fae did so intentionally.

John, without you, Fae's RfA would have failed, but you put yourself on the line as having reviewed him and signed off on his edits. Your support carried more than just a personal weight. People accepted that you, as an ArbCOM Member, had vetted the candidate throughly---a view you accentuated when you said that we had to trust you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

recall Q

Hi Fae - would you please answer this question - thanks - Youreallycan 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the number of users that object to the issues surrounding your successful RFA that you would feel you had lost trust - currently its at thirty nine, with ten administrators and you are not answering the question - how many good faith objections to your ability to access advanced permissions would you consider worth your offering recall, forty you have not even replied to , what about sixty or eighty, will you reply ? Youreallycan 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have kept well away from this discussion (well, multiple discussions) but have followed from a distance. The entire thing is a farrago, and that includes the policy aspects of it. I have no idea what the procedure is but suspect that this is one of those situations where it will be made up "on the hoof" because of the unique-ness of it. I agree entirely that when the numbers stack up as they have done then there is a just cause for recall. On the other hand, any recall right now would be further dispersing the debate and entrenching positions. Is there any precedent for this? - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of an image from an 18th century book?

Hello Fæ, Pesky and I have been working on The Meermin slave mutiny, and I've found what looks to be a very useful image for the ship in an 18th century book. The trouble is, the book doesn't appear to be online, and neither Pesky nor I are in a position to have physical access ourselves. Chzz (talk · contribs) has suggested contacting you, to see if a copy can be obtained for use in the article, perhaps from the British Library. The book is Groenewegen, Gerrit (1789; re-printed ?1969), Verzameling van vier en tachtig stuks Hollandsche schepen, and the image looks to be number 8, entitled "Driemast Hoeker Zeylende voor de wind" - as far as I can tell! The image is reproduced in Collins, T. (2001), "From Hoekers to Hookers: A Survey of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography on the Origins of the Galway Hooker", Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, vol. 53, p. 71, but the quality is - um - appalling! Thanks for your time, either way. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a few weeks before I'm at the BL again (possibly March), I'll add it to my list for the next time I'm there to see if it is okay to scan. The reprint copies I see in the BL catalogue are from 1967 [2] so this may depend on whether a staff member interprets the book as being within copyright rather than the particular image. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much for taking this on board – obviously March is soon enough, and, understood about "interpretation of copyright": it should be ok, but yes, that's in the hands of fate! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I might well be able to do it much sooner than that. I'll let you know. Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been able to take care of it, so no worries. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's a wonderful surprise, thank you – yep, that's the very image, and I've now stuck a few (hopefully!) appropriate categories on it. Fabulous, I'm very grateful – thank you both! :o) Nortonius (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(>**)> Megahugz! Thank you so much – that's absolutely great! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding question

You have responded several times in the same thread, but you have not addressed the question I posed here. My apologies if this is an uncomfortable question under the circumstances, but I am not sure what "threat" is being referred to in your comments. It is difficult to know how to take your remarks without knowing what it is you are referencing. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with the direct link you have included to a threat on Commons. Could you reword without including the link and it can be removed from the page history before I reply? I am not free this evening but will probably get back to it tomorrow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If it makes you uncomfortable then of course I will remove the direct link, but perhaps you have time to simply answer yes or no as to whether that is the "threat" to which you refer? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to honestly explain what is happening about how this is being handled and I need to check that is okay with another party first. Thank you for removing the link. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon for budding in, but for what reason would Fae have to answer such a question? Why does it matter what a person felt? Life is (thankfully) not completely like bel canto opera, in which characters sing arias about how they feel about threats to their lives, as in Rienzi. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not good with riddles, if this comment is even addressed to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is no riddle. The main part of that is "What reason would Fae have to answer such a question?" CycloneGU (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Also butting in) DC, I am an editor who assumes good faith, but if you were to take a simple statement of a viewpoint and completely twist it around to a much different wording that you seem to think means the same thing, then ask for my opinion on your falsified wording of that view, I would not only refuse to answer your question; I would tell you to fuck off.

In other words, I support Fæ not answering that question, and urge him not to. CycloneGU (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(Struck as I misread who asked the question. CycloneGU (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

I am not sure which statement you believe I am twisting, but it likely doesn't matter. Fæ will chose to answer or not as they see fit. If they wish to tell me to fuck off, they know how to reach me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide some clarity here as I erred.

Ash quit under a cloud, with an active user RFC containing serious allegations about reliable sources and BLPs. If Fae really is Ash, ArbCom erred greatly in letting him stand for adminship without disclosing his past account to the community. With full transparency, its very likely the RfA wouldn't have passed.

Now, I've gone back to the link and just realized that there are two comments listed there, signed separately. The bit I saw on top was this:

Fae, as I see there are thirty nine editors that includes ten administrators, that object to your RFA and would like you to submit yourself for another one with full openness. - Is that sufficient to activate your recall?

That question came from Youreallycan. Therefore, I associated that with you in error, and I apologize for that. I now see your question was "For the sake of clarity, can you confirm that the "threat against me and my husband" is this (a link) anonymous comment made on Commons?" I have struck my comment above, but I don't think I understand what you are asking. Are you suggesting Fae made the comment? CycloneGU (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, no, I am not suggesting that. I do not know how my question could be interpreted in that way. I am asking if that comment is what Fæ is referring to when the say that there have been "threats" made against them and their husband. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's very possible that could be one such threat. However, from a personal standpoint, I don't know if that's our business. No offense meant as such when I say that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Personal_attacks. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you, Fæ

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Nec illegitimates manet dum confectum erit. Marek.69 talk 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please close Dan Savage discussion...

We have one IP user arguing for partner, I think we have reached end of discussion/snow.Naraht (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dan Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I agree, I'll ask around for someone independent of the article to close the RFC. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I raised it on IRC but nobody seemed to want to touch it. Leave it to run itself down, I'm not in a position to close it myself. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Camerarka

Hello Fae, need to inform you that the article Camerarka has been created by User:Camerarka who has moved it to that page. I suggest that this article be deleted as soon as possible as there seems to be a possible conflict of interest here because i suspect that the user has created the article on himself and writing on it since many months now. The user has now also redirected his user talk page User talk:Camerarka to Aurko Mukherjee. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the userspace -> articlespace redirect as that directly contravenes the guidelines of USER. I'll leave the autobiography to be deleted by someone else, it seems an easy decision to make. I would think that Camerarka may want the page userfied later on if he still wants such a lengthy vanity page in his userspace. To be honest, I can't remember a connection, did I deal with a related problem before? --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the matter has been solved now. Don't know which related problem you are talking about though! But anyways thanks for your help Fae :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

is there a reasoin your undoing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.188.47 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a paedophile would require quality reliable sources, see Biographies of living persons. If intended as a joke, it will not be treated as one. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Selected image uploaded to Commons

An interesting widget. Which part of the code on your userpage is responsible for it? I may want to try it on mine :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a peek at the wikicode at User:Fæ/image. It's a bit of a hack but not too hard to understand or customize for yourself, I hope. Have fun. --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WR link

Rereading your post, I think you linked to my "rejoinder", which I just restored to the page, because it documents what you said, but now I'm not totally sure you didn't link to it because you find it to be harassing. If you delete it I won't argue, or if you ask I'll delete it myself. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already made my request for the reposted speculative claims about my sex life to be removed and deleted from the page history. I don't understand why you expect me to repeat it. It is not necessary to repost these allegations, if you are in doubt about what to do with such material, please copy them in an email to Jon Davies who is prepared to keep them permanently on record and confidential unless used as evidence as part of an official investigation into harassment, independently of me or anyone else. Jon's details are already on the RFC/U talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for adding fuel to the fire. My impulse as a Wikipedia editor is to provide sources when I'm disputed. Part of the problem is that I still don't know exactly which things in that were problematic, but it looks like I should avoid posting any more WR links. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now also deleted the link to that "tar pit" WR thread I never was able to read; I don't recall citing WR anywhere else and I don't see any links to them left on the discussion page. I see now that WP:HARASS is pretty clear about leaving out those links, especially when they're objected to. If anything else I've been doing with your case has been distressful, please let me know. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Westminster

As an editor with a lot of experience editing London and university-related articles, I would be most grateful for your input at the above article. There has been a bit of name-calling on the Talk page - which I have been partly guilty of - and I expect you will have no interest in. The core issue however is whether this admittedly low quality article should be festooned with tags. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy over the next couple of days, I agree the page looks ridiculously over-tagged which is not the reason they exist (i.e. to encourage improvement rather than putting people off trying). I'll make a brief comment and will take a second look next week when I have more time. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:BLCAT

Seems that the Integrated Catalogue has been withdrawn, as of the end of January. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this a while back, I think the interface has moved around so BLCAT may not work but identities such as system number are still the same, should be fixable, probably. Will investigate; at some point.

Note that the sys parameter still works, for example {{BLCAT|sys=000687638}} gives British Library 000687638. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Jonathan Obar survey

Dear Fae, My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students. So a few things about the interviews: Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes. Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.) All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so. All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time. The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly. Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead. If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you. Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you. Sincerely, Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have collapsed this survey note. I am rather unhappy with the interpretation that this village pump discussion was interpreted as "broadly supportive" and was a rationale for canvassing hundreds of admin talk pages. My opinion is that this was poor judgement. --Fæ (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious how you would describe that discussion. While Obar said "mostly positive" rather than "broadly supportive", "mostly positive" seems to be a pretty accurate description of the discussion. There were some specific quibbles and suggestions, but no one saying "This is a bad idea all around, don't do it." Nathan ^T 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the same discussion shows that of 7 headline replies, 5 were not directly supportive and I would read as negative. Were this me I might have summarized the case for and against but asked for another set of opinions against a re-written survey. You may believe the negatives were quibbles but I certainly would not interpret that as a consensus to add large notices to several hundred user pages. Remember that I did not 'opt in' (or was even given an opportunity by RCom to 'opt out') for impersonal notices on my user page or by email. In essence this repeats the problem we saw with the use of Central Notices to advertise a survey. Thanks Fæ (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps the signal difference is that central notices have typically been subject to consensus; talk page notifications have not. Nathan ^T 03:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Jellybean2012 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My relative, Stella Cunliffe, died on the 20 January 2012, and I was rather upset that the date was incorrect on Wikipedia, so changed it. But now you have deleted her death completely. If you want it verified, please check The Times Obituary, and reinstate the correct date. 20 January 2012. Thank you. Jellybean2012 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Stella Cunliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I see someone has already picked up the point on your talk page and improved the article. In my edit comment I referred to WP:Biographies of living persons#Deceased, please take a moment to read it through as it makes things clearer than I could. Don't be disillusioned, articles are collaborative so it is often worth raising questions on the article talk page if you see something was reverted and it is not clear why. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a simple thing to do. It also let me enhance the RSS article to include a fact that was not there, their first female president. New users are sometimes discouraged however hel[ful we try to be. I hope Jellybean 2012 stays, edits other articles and enjoys this peculiar pastime. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Haptiop

You should block him forever, can you please revdel the nonsense he put on my user page? He used a retired accounts name and an offensive barnstar on there. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Haptiop (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

 Done I have been conservative and blocked this abusive account for a week and will keep the account on my watchlist. Thank you for intervening in personal attacks on other contributors and I am sorry if you have been upset by the offensive material targeted at yourself. Do not hesitate to report any harassing material to Oversight or Administrator intervention against vandalism if you prefer not to touch it yourself or it is defamatory and should not stay in the page history. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning to me.

Hello Fae,

Just responding to accusations. I am very annoyed about how I have recieved warnings about edits to many articles in Wikipedia that say that those edits were made by me. I have been through my computers history to see if my sons may be responsible but they did not have access to my computer at the dates and times. Also, I cannot find any history on my computer of Wikipedia being visited on the dates and times.

The final warning tells me that I may be banned from editing Wikipedia if this continues. I have NOT made any rude or disruptive editing. Here is the warnings page I refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:121.219.132.137&redirect=no

Can this please be checked as the edits were not made by me or on my computer. They also appear to be made by someone not even logged into my account!

Thanking you Ken James Wikipedia Login name (ballaratdragons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaratdragons (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if these look worrying. After taking a look at User talk:121.219.132.137, these warnings are from nearly a year ago and so I have hidden them from view. Your IP address may be dynamically reset every now and then by your ISP or possibly when you re-boot your modem. Warnings for the anonymous IP address are therefore not directed at you personally and there is no implication that you are responsible for edits made under that address in the past. One of the benefits of having a named account is that your edit history persists with you, rather than whoever might use that address (which may be shared over time or locations). If you ensure you always log into your named account and do not share it with anyone else, there should never be a problem. You may want to check that your family members have their own named accounts for the same reasons. Don't be discouraged, nobody here will think that this is your fault. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fae. Now it all makes sense : )

Cheers Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaratdragons (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JamPlay Deletion

Hello,

I am inquiring about your deletion of the "JamPlay" listing on Wikipedia. It does not appear that you added any information to provide details on the deletion. I am still interested in writing up a Wikipedia entry on this company. Can you please provide information on how I can proceed?

Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinAce (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have userfied a copy for you to continue developing at User:KevinAce/JamPlay. Please take a look at WP:Notability (web) to see what is required for sources to demonstrate this is notable enough for an article. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I made the edits on Computer Virus and Antivirus software

Thank you for your welcome message. I have been editing Wikipedia articles from a long time but I don't have a lot of experience. I have an account but I prefer not to sign in. I'm also not a native English speaker.

Please review the edits I've just made and help correct and adapt them for best fit (see the mistake I made and I cannot correct in the talk section of the Antivirus software article).

With respect, thank you! 79.119.11.171 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that info. It will help a lot. 79.119.11.171 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Omegle

Hi. I noticed this edit because it directly followed one of my own. Can you please explain how this [3] was vandalism? Uncited, sure, and maybe WP:UNDUE, even perhaps WP:NPOV issues - the phrasing is poor and "hyped", but surely not vandalism? I only point this out because of a recent RFA I was involved in which sadly failed due to the community's distaste at marking edits covered by WP:NOT VANDALISM as vandalism, and I thought you'd want to be aware under those circumstances. I hope you don't mind me doing that. Begoon ^talk 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Omegle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for pointing it out. The second time around was not marked as vandalism and I gave a much better explanation in the edit comment. As you are tracking the history here, I'll leave it to you to follow up with Cooldog789 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) as to why their third time adding the same non-neutral and unsourced critical comments about "horrific nudity", in less than 3 hours, puts them in danger of being seen as blatantly edit-warring. Thanks for your help in supporting this new user, I'll take the article off my watch-list. --Fæ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Indeed, your second revert does explain better. Since the original edit directly followed one of my edits, I could hardly miss it, really. It's still on my watchlist, so I'll no doubt follow what happens, but I'm not an admin, so what I can do will be limited. I agree it's a nuisance when people try to repeatedly insert a strong POV, and it's often difficult to know what line to take. I'll certainly consider discussing it with them, or warning them, or anyone else, who edit wars there. The new user registered in 2010, but granted, there is such an editing gap, and so few edits overall, that you may as well consider them new. I'm not sure why you want to take Omegle off your watchlist now, it gets a lot of vandalism and every pair of eyes helps, but thanks for the quick response.Begoon ^talk 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Boys

All contestants on talent contests should not be on wiki. The Winner show itself and say the other finalist perhaps. Daniel Boys came 6th in Any Dream Will Do and he hasn't done anything noteworthy since. He is an understudy! Come on. How is he noteworthy? This is the problem with Wiki it has become bloated with useless information that serves no purpose. Just because someone has an Official Website does not make them a star. I have written 5 novels which have sold a total of 36,000 copies in the U.K. I'm not noteworthy either. Wiki is becoming a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.26.223 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As mentioned on your talk page, there is a sufficient rationale against WP:ENT to make a speedy on WP:CSD A7 grounds dubious. If you wish to have this article fully discussed against the notability criteria then please nominate the article per Articles for deletion. You may want to read Summary of benefits before doing so, though I suspect you may already be familiar with it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Grindr article re: stopracismandhomophobiaongrindr.tumblr.com

Hi there, yes I am indeed affiliated with the above tumblr. I am definitely interested in fair play though and am new to wikipedia (which means I reinstated the links you deleted before I noticed I had a message from you). I believe what I have written is factually correct - in the sense that I tried to take my emotions out and just report factual information. Regardless, I really would like your assistance in editing on wikipedia more "correctly". Here are the facts as I see them: 1. there is a strong push back by many in the Gay community against Grindr's anti-racism and-homophobia policies. 2. Grindr has been contacted about this issue many times. 3. Grindr has stated it does not think the offending language is offensive, despite numerous claims otherwise. So, please, how to procede. This debate has been occurring in the blogosphere and I have appeared on 2 radio stations about the issue. What I reported in the GRINDR article was truth, but obviously (at least it seems) someone didn't like it. Can you please elaborate more on how I can report these facts and not be considered pushing some false agenda? PS - I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO "SIGN" MY NAME HERE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamaflame (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Grindr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is very difficult for someone heavily involved in such an external dispute to contribute neutrally to an article in a way that is truely encyclopaedic (i.e. with a long term viewpoint and with neutral text that represents a fairly weighted summary of all relevant views). Just as it is a good idea for Grindr staff to avoid editing the article themselves, it is equally a good idea for anyone lobbying off-wiki for the organization to change policies to avoid injecting the same criticism into the article without some consensus for the changes. I suggest the following:

1. I revert the changes so far as they still depend on your tumblr site.
2. You take some time to write a neutral proposal for the criticism of Grindr on the article talk page and we allow at least 24 hours for comment. Grindr have policies that state they are against racism in profiles and this should be included.
3. You have referred to radio interviews and these and any other independent coverage would significantly enhance your argument. Please see WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) and reliable sources for guidance as to what might be a suitable source.

I do not believe you are pushing a false agenda, however you are pushing an agenda and so please be prepared to step back slightly and give time to present your case and ensure that it can be credibly verified, assessed in terms of suitable weight and not an issue for conflict of interest. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your response, it is appreciated and there wasn't any part of it I didn't agree with. I will take up your suggestions.Iamaflame (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi... did my time and learned a lesson or two... perhaps.

Hello. I did my time and perhaps learned something new. I understand that many people would agree in the way you presented eternal life (Christianity) and my previous approach could have lacked style and consensus. Alan347 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please take care, you might wish to spend some time helping with non-religious topics of interest and give yourself a good track record before returning to areas where you feel so passionately that it might be hard to judge what others might see as a neutral point of view. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thannks

Hello Fæ. Just wanted to leave a note of thanks for protecting George Harrison's article. I also wanted to let you know that I have posted requests at a couple wikiproject pages to try and get more input into the situation. Thanks again and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Vjiced

This editor's edits need reviewing. Little things like the use of the M tag for major edits, big things such as finding a 'minor' edit with a huge chunk of copyvio. I've made a slight start but am busy a lot of today in real life. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also edits such at this one [4] - not well sourced, but my main complaint is that it not only doesn't seem worthwhile adding to the article, the way it was added is clearly pov, not just adding a description of Bilderberg that is pov but the section itself. I have seen a lot of addtions to biographies that they attended Bilderberg written in a pov manner. Ever so often I do a search and clear them up. Glad you caught the scribd thing, we should never link to them because of copyvio issues, let alone the fact that we don't know if the copy matches the original. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bilderberg Group and the List of Bilderberg participants is a very long term problem due to endless speculation on gossip sites about who might go to these meetings and various classic (non-notable) conspiracy theories as a result. I spent some time poking at this stuff a year ago and it seems relatively stable now. Unfortunately some folks get excited after doing a Google search and start re-adding the same dubious websites and unverifiable claims. I'll take a bit of time to re-review contributions by User:Vjiced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and see if they need more advice. They do seem to be running into problems but I don't think this was intentional, just misguided. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done — some pointers given on their talk page. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor is still adding copyvio despite my warning, and take a look at [5] which is an obvious BLP violation and pov edit. I am considering an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the copyvio turned out to have a creative-commons licence, and I'm not sure what we do about copy and paste in that instance. I should know, but don't. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the diff example. If stuff is taken from the Bilderberg website of a creative nature, then it is all rights reserved. Is there some other source here I should compare with? I can certainly see POV problems (not of a ghastly type) but it would be any copyvio that would lead to a quick block considering they have had a last warning already. --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And now blocked for 48 hours for copyvio - I asked Moonriddengirl what she thought and she blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahrani people

Hello Fae,

you have half-protected the article Bahrani people due to the edit warring there. I am not sure whether this is the right measure, as one of the warriors is a signed-in user, User:Ashrf1979. Since I have tried to start a discussion on the talk page and put OR templates on the disputed sections, Ashrf has even removed the OR tags instead of joining the discussion, even though I have addressed him/her personally on the user talk page. I have never ever seen Ashrf posting on any discussion page and the user seems to show indications of article ownership. Could you provide a remedy to this problem? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just commented on the article talk page. If the problem cannot be resolved through informal discussion, then mediation might be in order. I'm a bit busy to spend time on this myself, but the ways of seeking independent help are described at Dispute resolution but simple remedies such as raising a specific RFC might help make a consensus completely unambiguous for all interested parties.

Anyway, please do consider thinking through a proposal of this sort on the talk page (it would probably be smart to stick to the high ground and avoid editing the article while running such a proposal). If needed I will fully protect for a week while everyone discusses it, but it would be a lot better for everyone to calm down and let the consensus process work itself out without taking such embarrassing measures. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Landmark Trust Lundy Island Philatelic Archive

Fae, I am close to finishing the remaining BL Philatelic Department stubs. Do you want to release the above article, even if it is only as a stub, then I can let them know that we are ready to go to stage two, so to speak, and do the hard bit of actually filling them in? (They have managed to recruit an additional collaborator who is retired and can give it some time). Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I forgot that I had this sitting in my drafts for so long. Now moved to Landmark Trust Lundy Island Philatelic Archive. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my file - why?

Heya, I'm a newby to Wiki, and I have seen, that you've deleted my file cornerstone_somewhere_in_america.jpg, which I have uploaded recently. Just wanted to know, why, and on which way I'll upload it correctly? I'm the creator and artwork-owner of the image, just for the records...which licence should I use, and on which way I'll get my file into the article? Thx for your respond, mozzer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrissey1976 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is confusing. There was a message on the file page about speedy deletion. The issue was the statement "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted" which is not possible for images uploaded to the English Wikipedia unless a fair use rationale applies. Please find below the original message which provides a full explanation. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doctors Medical Center and Seton Medical Center

Good afternoon, I am trying to have these added to DYK and improve and expand them. I was wondering if I could get some feedback or peer review from you?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2012 Kids' Choice Awards, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

2012 Kids' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Ucla90024 (talk · contribs), could you please sign your edits, particularly if you are handing out user warning templates so easily. With regard to this warning you have reverted dubious material into the article with your changes diff. Could you supply an unambiguous source for "Buttkicker" as an award? You have added http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/2012/nominees as a reference, but the page this takes me to, does not appear to support the information you are footnoting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

regarding your block reduction

Hi Fae - I was surprised to see you reduce that block on User:PaoloNapolitano. I would, and do, consider you involved concerning anything to do with wikipedia review and would appreciate it if in future you left such related admin actions to others. PaoloNapolitano is also quacking loudly - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_3#Proposal_by_PaoloNapolitano is quite revealing, and it is only a matter of time before his previous restricted account is revealed.Youreallycan 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I have no prior involvement with PaoloNapolitano or their Wikipedia contributions related to this block. Perhaps you are confusing for one of the Wikipedia administrators that writes on Wikipedia Review? You will note that both PaoloNapolitano and the administrator that gave the original indefinite block against them are satisfied with my use of the administrator tools.

If you believe that someone is in breach of the Sock puppetry policy, please use Sockpuppet investigations and supply the relevant evidence. Considering your total number of edits to Wikipedia is similar to or may exceed mine, I feel certain that you are experienced with the process and fully understand why it is not acceptable to make sock puppetry allegations about other contributors here on my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A disappointing reply. You are clearly involved in issues related in any way to the wikipedia review. Paolo is here attacking the review and its users, a position you clearly are involved in . I have let you know my concerns, the next time you take an admin action in this area I will report you. Youreallycan 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing other people making personal and sexual allegations about me off-wiki with me being involved with PaoloNapolitano. I suggest you refrain from making any further allegations against others on my user talk page or threats of possible action. I am not interested in getting drawn in your drama, particularly in consideration of your long history of apparent personal difficulty in taking an objective approach with gay related subjects on Wikipedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what this discussion about your admin action has to do with gays? Youreallycan 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

De wha?? That went from normal to strange in less than a couple posts.VolunteerMarek 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see that you had reduced the block. I have asked for a review of your unblock on ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no involvement of Fae with an image copyright dispute or a sockpuppetry allegation. Just because WR mounts a smear campaign against an admin doesn't mean that he should be ineligible to weigh in on any case where an editor has made an anti-WR comment, even when those comments are not in any way involved with the block. P.S. I was surprised not to find anything in [8] - was there an investigation? How was it decided that IP was PauloNapolitano anyway? Wnt (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask that in the ongoing ArbCom3 RfC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae wasn't to know he was a sockpupperteer interwiki disruptive troll, because he didn't give a damn about that and didn't stop to look - he felt empathy with the troll regarding the wikipedia review issues and wanted to unblock him so he did. Fae, you need to stop your wiki lawyering and accept your mistakes or it will rebound on you - you were involved and it was a mistake for you to use your tools to unblock this user. Your attempting to assert my good faith concern about your using your tools in this case and unblocking a clearly disruptive account was something to do with gays, also reflects badly on you. Recent cases at Arbitration reflect a position that users that err and declare are looked upon in a much better light than those that fail to see or accept the errors of their tool actions. You exposed your personal involvement in your unblock accept comment, you didn't see good faith users attempting to expose a block evading disruptive troll, you saw , "inflammatory drama relating to this block that many other accounts have contributed to" - your comment appeartainig to users that you feel have attacked you at wikipedia review being responsible for creating drama to get PaoloNapolitato unfairly blocked and hence your rapid, and (especially with hindsight and also because the issues and concerns surrounding the users account were clearly still under developing discussion at the ANI report) poorly judged block reduction from indefinite to 24 hours - you used your tools in this instance, not in a well judged on the situation and facts available manner, but in the manner of defending the enemy of your enemies.Youreallycan 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to unblock users when their reasons for a block expire - not to avoid doing so unless they have perfect, telepathic knowledge that no future offense will be reported. I don't know what that "ArbCom3 RfC" is (Found it - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3), and I have little confidence in ArbCom, but they certainly do have the possibility of making some good decisions. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A request to relinquish your tools

As far as I can tell you're not one of the admins open to recall. However, in some circumstances I think it is reasonable to invoke the "admins open to recall" procedure even in cases where a particular administrator has not identified themselves as such. This is what I'm doing here. I am asking you to step down as an administrator and run for reconfirmation. I think a good part of the community has lost faith in you as an administrator (though not necessarily a Wikipedia editor) and has become uncomfortable with you continuing in your role as an administrator. Of course your contributions to the project are still very much appreciated.

The reasons for this request are as follows:

• You were a subject of a recent RfC/U where several concerns over the way that your confirmation was made were highlighted. As far as I can tell you stayed away from this discussion, which, while commendable in terms of avoiding drama, also left these questions wide open.
• You made a ill-judged decision to unblock an obvious disruptive user simply because s/he was attacking users that you yourself had antagonistic relations with. Using the most charitable of terms this can be described as "cynical". Or in Wikipedia language WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In particular, the second aspect illustrates pretty clearly that you either lack the kind of judgement necessary to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia, or are not self aware enough to know when to consider yourself "involved" or not.

Of course I am not 100% impartial in this spat (I formed an opinion at some point, while reading through all the archives, and I am expressing it here) - though I've never been in any kind of dispute with you and I very much fall into the category of "uninvolved", as defined by Wikipedia (a definition which you yourself invoked recently). If my sense of community feelings is wrong then you will be reconfirmed. But I don't think that would be the case - it's pretty clear that were you to run for adminship right here and now you would not pass by a mile. And that means that this request has merit.

Do the Roman thing.

Thanks.VolunteerMarek 07:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Marek, how would you answer my question above? And I think it is all too clear who started this BATTLEGROUND, and it isn't Fae. The artillery never stops pounding around here, and those rounds aren't outgoing. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the RfC/U called for his undergoing reconfirmation? No. There were a number of views that agreed that he probably wouldn't have passed if his past had been known (big surprising news there---I opposed his RfA because I feared that possibility.) But the community overwhelmingly passed his RfA... and a small number of people actually called for his undergoing a reconfirmation RfA. In fact, fewer people actively called for a reconfirm than said he didn't need to. Give it a break.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget Balloonman that a large number of people also called the very RFC/U a form of harassment on Fae. That should not be forgotten, especially in certain contexts. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that falling for PN's trolling is a desysopping offense. Not on en.wiki anyway. PN knew how to push people's buttons. He had plenty of experience doing that on three other wikis, never mind his prior enwiki accounts. Let's AGF that Fæ was AGFing while having seen only part of the picture. At the time when Fæ had reduced the block (to 24 hrs.) the evidence of socking and cross-wiki disruption was not yet public. Luckily for us, the indef reblock was done by an Arbitrator and endorsed by another with a comment to not unblock without contacting ArbCom first. So, at least in this case, we can avoid more public admin-vs-admin drama. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no "admin-vs-admin drama".

The admin giving the previous indef block made it conditional on an explanation and my change of the block was after that condition was met. The original admin supported my action, in writing, on ANI. A more accurate description would be "admin supporting admin non-drama used by long term Wikipedia Review supporters and promoters eager to create a BATTLEGROUND". Though I expect you probably know that, as you can be seen following and commenting at every step of these events on ANI.

Yes, the later change to my block appears to have been based on what was non-public information and analysis at the time. Information that it would have been impossible for me as an ordinary administrator to know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And I think it is worth noting, should the need arise, that ASCII was fairly critical of Fae during the RfCU---so ia not a Fae apologist.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment regarding "homophobic"

In your comment here [9] you make a statement that seems both incorrect and hurtful to me, and I would appreciate it if you would remove the statement, or at the very least redact it. Regardless, I have hatted the conversation as off-topic. Thank you.LedRush (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to reply explaining how the word "homophobic" was used more than once in the previous thread. I thought it was plainly obvious that I was referring to that usage (rather than making any claim of any kind about you) considering that I explicitly pointed it out in the same paragraph. I was going to return to say that, but as you have unilaterally collapsed the discussion, I guess you would prefer me to stay away from your article on Tyler Clementi rather than attempting to collaborate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

While I honestly welcome your input on the article, of course I cannot force you to engage in conversations with which you do not want to be connected. However, I will ask you again to remove or redact your comments per my request. As it seems that you are misunderstanding the base comments (and your reply to them), I will explain why I feel this needs to be done.

You said "For me, any on-wiki discussion that resorts to the "are you being/calling me homophobic" question shows there has been a serious breakdown in communication or that there is an even worse problem of contributors feeling harassed for their interest in gay topics or assumptions about their own sexuality." However, there is no accusation of anyone being homophobic, and no one has felt s/he has been accused of homophobia.

You said "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." I have never said that, hinted it, or implied it. In fact, I have explicitly denied this. The statement is unfounded and hurtful.

For these reasons, I would appreciate it if you could remove or redact your statements.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can think of no other way of reading:

"Careful choice of words or otherwise, I don't think that I've ever said or implied that you are homophobic. I have said, explicitly, that I think that you go too far in wanting the page to avoid presenting Ravi in a prejudicial light; you've made it clear that you think I lean the other way."

This appears to be an editor thinking the other was saying or implying they were homophobic. Could you explain how else to read such a statement? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Trypto mistakenly thought that I mistakenly felt that he said that I was homophobic. I didn't say this - meaning, I never thought that he accused me of homophobia. Also, he clearly never accused me of homophobia. This was cleared up quickly and easily on the talk page, and it seems now that only you are confused or upset by this. So, in summary, no one accused anyone of homophobia, and no one felt that they were accused of homophobia.

However, you seem to be ignoring the core issues here. I will repeat them below for convenience:

-You said "For me, any on-wiki discussion that resorts to the "are you being/calling me homophobic" question shows there has been a serious breakdown in communication or that there is an even worse problem of contributors feeling harassed for their interest in gay topics or assumptions about their own sexuality." However, there is no accusation of anyone being homophobic, and no one has felt s/he has been accused of homophobia.

-You said "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." I have never said that, hinted it, or implied it. In fact, I have explicitly denied this. The statement is unfounded and hurtful.LedRush (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The example I provided clearly relates to inferences that editors are "homophobic", the inference was later accepted as incorrect. By definition this must have been a breakdown in communication. I highlighted the thread as being unwelcoming for any new contributors.

I am prepared to strike the second part of my sentence, if you really want me to, the bit that says "or that there is an even worse problem of contributors feeling harassed for their interest in gay topics or assumptions about their own sexuality" on the basis of it being hypothetical, however there seems no reason to withdraw the first part or my continued puzzlement as to why you would think that this sort of tone is not a problem on a talk page notably about a suicide caused by what has been labeled by most people as homophobic bullying.

This discussion is itself a good reminder of why I took the article off my watch-list for 6 months after having to deal with you previously. I don't really want to be dragged into lengthy wikilawyering, particularly when it is obvious that such discussions will put off any new contributors as well as keeping away old ones like myself. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to redact the second half of the first statement quoted above. Please do so.

Furthermore, as I have never said, implied, or hinted that I think accusations or assumption of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable (and I have explicitly rejected this position) I would appreciate it if you would remove or redact your second statement quoted above.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you find nothing problematic with the tone of the discussion on the page, while on the other hand you appear to be saying you would not find it acceptable. I do not understand what you are asking me to strike out. --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the deletion or redaction mentioned above...

You said "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." I have never said that, hinted it, or implied it. In fact, I have explicitly denied this. The statement is unfounded and hurtful. Please delete it, or at least redact it. I am not sure where your confusion is coming from.LedRush (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This thread includes assumptions of homophobia and you appear to not consider that a breakdown of communication and then object to me pointing out the facts or explaining that I am puzzled that you find such discussion acceptable on the Tyler Clementi talk page. You cannot object to my puzzlement, you cannot object to the fact that the word "homophobic" was used and I don't see how you can think the thread in question was anything other than a breakdown of communication at the point when such inferences were made. You may find me pointing out the facts hurtful, but they still appear to be facts. If you still do not understand my point, then I suggest you ask someone independent to take a view as I cannot think of a clearer way of spelling it out. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the thread explicitly does not make assumptions of homophobia, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Your refusal to accept this seems odd, as it is nearly impossible to read the thread in a way that would indicate that anyone has accused anyone else of homophobia. And because you refuse to remove an obviously false accusation regarding me (that I "think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable"), I feel that I need to file a WQA.LedRush (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think that I've ever said or implied that you are homophobic." is an inference that the preceding text caused the editor to reach that conclusion. Most people would be able to draw a parallel with Godwin's law and conclude that communication has broken down at that point. I think this long thread is at an end as I do not believe that we can understand each other. For the second time in 6 months I have removed your Tyler Clementi article from my watch-list after having to deal with you. Best of luck with the aim of attracting new editors with your approach to collaboration. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Filed here [10]LedRush (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

While one editors has explicitly disclaimed that you have been uncivil (and some others implicitly say this), all who have weighed in on the subject of the quotation regarding my beliefs have said that it is not accurate based on the conversation. I don't suppose you will agree with their view, and mine, and respectfully delete the quotation in question?LedRush (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will strike all my recent comments in '#Stability and civility', if you can propose and reach a consensus with other contributors for a default process for escalation and review for the next time an editor on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi makes a statement that appears to be along the lines of "are you calling me homophobic?", or similar such that others reading the page might interpret as failing WP:5P#4, to ensure that the talk page is maintained as a welcoming space for new contributors interested in improving difficult and sensitive gay related topics to contribute. I also request you agree with Tryptofish to collapse '#Another reversion that we need to discuss' as it contains "homophobia" twice and "homophobic" twice in relation to editors which remains seriously off-putting for any new editors whilst it remains on view, in my opinion, regardless of the fact that you and Tryptofish reached an understanding. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems odd that you would require extraordinary procedures to regulate a talk page before agreeing to redact (instead of remove) accusations that everyone except you acknowledges as false.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I read that WQA discussion differently to you and your summary appears quite factually incorrect. Some key phrases that stand out:

• Not relevant to these circumstances, but can be perfectly legitimate to call out unambiguous homophobia.
• I appreciate Fae's concern that the article talk page not appear unwelcoming to new editors.
• However, in the next misunderstanding, I mistook LedRush's concern that I was accusing him of bias as a concern that I was accusing him of bias against gays, which of course I wasn't.
• In that spirit, let me suggest to LedRush that you let Fae's comments pass as a misunderstanding, and not continue to be bothered by them.

The only accusation I have been making is that there seems to be a problem if words such as "homophobic" and "homophobia" directed at other editors remain on an article talk page as an indication of what is acceptable behaviour and tone for contributors, particularly on a highly sensitive article talk page about a gay suicide related to homophobic bullying, even if the editors involved have resolved their misunderstanding. I remain puzzled as to why you are so vigorous defending the position. Please consider the fact that in good faith I have struck part of my comments already and removed the article in question from my watch-list (for a second time, after steering clear of you for six months due what I saw as uncollaborative behaviour), if you want to continue forcing me to reply further I suggest you work through an intermediary, you are excessively wiki-lawyering on my user talk page to the extent of appearing to be trolling rather than just mistakenly flogging a dead horse, and your apparent misreading of the direct recommendations given to you at the WQA notice that you created is disturbing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are again accusing me of defending a position I do not hold. All I ask is that you remove an accusation made against me that is untrue. Of the four editors who have commented on the WQA, three have accepted that your accusation is not true, and one has not addressed the point. Your refusal to accept community consensus is disheartening.

Furthermore, your continued incivility, unwillingness to work collaboratively, and personal attacks belie any contended position that you hope to add anything positive to this discussion. It is clear from your responses and unwillingness to discuss with me honestly that your sole intent was to insult me and to cause disruption on the talk page. It is particularly telling to me that the other editors who edit the talk page talk about a largely positive atmosphere in which decisions are made through consensus, yet you continually, in your personal attacks against me, ignore this. I am done trying to discuss things with you intelligently as it appears that you have no desire to engage me on the same level. I will do my best to avoid you.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, pretty much as was suggested to you at WQA. Cheerio. --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the same WQA in which everyone who commented on your accusation agreed it was not true.LedRush (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, lovely, thanks for your kind thoughts, cheerio again. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

thanks fae for protecting the Doon School page. I was just going to request for it. I bet it's the same guy. Anyway, thanks very much! Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Drop by Requests for page protection if it sparks up again. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion

Hi, a small problem with the GA review of this article. The review is not getting properly transcluded in the talk page. The reviewer had transcluded it manually when they added the initial comments for the first time. Further edits to the review were not reflected on the talk. I tried purging the talk page, no changes yet. Thanks in advance! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done The problem was relying on complex use of non-included footnotes. A bit bizarre for a review document. The endnotes are hidden from the talk page, someone might want to consider if that is a good thing or not. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Fæ. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer right

Hello Fae, i was thinking if you could grant me the reviewer right. As you see i am an already qualified and eligible user. I already have the file mover and rollback rights . The page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer is currently inactive, so that's why i had asked you for your help. I know that the pending changes trial is over, but still i could get the rights as 1)If requests were being processed, i would have already got them as i am a trusted user, 2)There is no harm in granting it. Furthermore it will be beneficial to both me and the community as whole. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you raised the matter at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Reviewer_right, I'll leave it to those folks to explain the situation. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gogyōka 2nd AfD

Fæ, as nominator of the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka last year, which you eventually withdrew, you may be interested to know that I have raised a second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka (2nd nomination). --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I confess my ignorance of poetry (as with most topics I help with on Wikipedia) is profound, however I agree that there is a continued sourcing problem and a review now more than a year has passed since the commitments for improvement in the last AFD is worthwhile. I may say something about being cautious due to potential Systemic bias, however there is a significant issue with Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and userfication may be the way forward if no independent authoritative source defines this as a poetry form widely recognized and/or with reasonable evidence of social impact. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of this?

Bossy

Thanks for the threat to "block" me without any enquiry as to the dispute. Yr chum Tim has just capriciously demolished in a second a modest sized adjustment that I made to the entry for Noel Coward's war service in WW1 that it took me almost an hour to assemble from the facts. The ammendment that I made was well written, well researched & sourced (which was given in the ammended text), & clearly solely because he doesn't want it being said - & within a second of me typing finishing it he appeared, god knows how he knew I was doing?? - & he's deleted the whole lot with a lying weasel excuse of it being "badly written & unsourced" (i.e. he doesn't personally want it there & obviously has an obsessive control of that page for some odd personal reason). What he's restored - clearly being his version - is factually untrue & it's obvious he knows it & he's probably doing this over a whole range of articles & then running behind you for cover when he gets messages from people he's done it to, playing the rules system which he's obviously studied carefully to hide himself in. What an strange little man he must be to carry on like this This has been a real insight for me into Wiki, this was the 1st time I'd entered anything, don't worry about blocking me, as I won't be expending the time, care & effort again to enter anything else with charaters like "Tim" running around carrying on like this If you can check what I put into the article that he's deleted somehow, you'll see for yourself what this guy's up to Bardrick (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a case for improving the Noël Coward article, please take it up on Talk:Noël Coward rather than being tempted to edit war in the article itself. Tim Riley has an excellent track record of improving and sourcing articles, however if you are in firm disagreement with him on how Coward's war service record should be weighted in the article, then using the article talk page will be a way of assessing general consensus rather than just Tim Riley's and your best judgement.

Please do not be confused, the user warning I gave you was not a threat, just an explanation of how our blocking policy applies for type of personal attack you made against another user on Wikipedia. Any threat which is written in terms of a real life threat of violence is an unacceptable personal attack and potentially a serious matter of harassment. I suggest you take a moment to consider the policies linked to in the user warning you have received. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your robust assertion of the right to edit without being threatened. What a shame the visiting editor couldn't take a few minutes to read the basics of WP; his/her edits, though wordy, might well have been be valid if properly referenced. Heigh ho! Tim riley (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help out, particularly as you have a first class history of positive collaboration with others. If you get any more unpleasantness, drop me an email note and I'll be happy to take a look or will contact someone who is experienced in these matters to either mediate or take action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Fæ a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea, it feels like much longer! Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BritishMuseum-barnstar.png

"Thanks for uploading File:BritishMuseum-barnstar.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. ...."

Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the above at Witty Lama's user talk page, removed the speedy deletion template and sent this message to Kelly - as well as a note to Witty Lama.

I removed the speedy deletion template. It doesn't look copyrightable to me since it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. It is, after all, just a barnstar on Wikipedia. Do any other Wikipedia barnstars have OTRS forms filed on them? Should we delete all the ones that don't have OTRS forms? In any case, this is clearly not your usual speedy. Put it up for regular deletion if you must. Smallbones (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Duh. It's a bit nit-picky isn't it? Formally, as one could debate the threshold of originality, I would advise anyone uploading something of this sort emailed from someone else to email a copy of the release into OTRS so a ticket number is available. If Liam wants to email in at some point, he can copy me directly and I'll slap on the ticket number. Informally, no, this is so obviously going to be okay that anyone who marked this for deletion (rather than just leaving a note for the uploader) would look a bit of a plonker. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Permission has been sent with "Pemissions BrisithMuseum-barnstar.png" (sic) as the subject line. I really do let small things upset me at times, so I won't say anymore, not even about possible translations of "plonker". Smallbones (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll hunt it out in a bit. BTW plonker was not direct at you, of course, you are in anyone's book a super smart achiever around these parts. --Fæ (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No I didn't think you meant to call me a plonker. BTW I've stolen your User:Fæ/image, see User:Smallbones/image. One extremely minor problem I see is that it opens a new user page every time that the "Select another image" is hit. I was thinking that it was in the final line of the code, where I use "User:Smallbones", but I see it does the same in yours too. No worry. Smallbones (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right - it only "appears" to refresh the image. I couldn't think of a smart way of doing that with options such as iframes not available. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your question...

...Here. Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already raised the point on ANI as Youreallycan promptly deleted my comment. I suggest you call me paranoid and offensive there, if you are happy that putting the blame on me for asking the obvious question is the direction you want to take on this one. I'll read your reply tomorrow, past my bedtime here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You have disgustingly assumed bad faith of me. Did you really expect a different reply? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm still off to bed. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that Fae so casually throws around these types of hurtful accusations "homophobic". It is ironic that he at once will accuse people of saying that accusations of homophobia have no place in civil discourse, yet make the same accusations about an admin that has obviously done nothing of the kind. Unfortunately, Fae has demonstrated that he does not care whether or not his incivil and disruptive actions hurt others or the project. However, Salvio, you should know that Fae may be more sensitive to these issues as he has been on the receiving end of some odious behavior.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, not only have you been flogging a dead horse, it is long buried and you are still thumping the dry ground; you had advice at WQA and you made a voluntary commitment to leave me alone, please follow it or others will begin to think you are obsessed. Your vague speculations that you find it "interesting" that I might be a bad person are not welcome on my talk page. If you have a specific issue about a demonstrable long term pattern of behaviour, with a proposal for improvement I will consider it, however this looks like fishing and incitement along the lines of a witch-finder. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your repeated incivility and employment of aggressive and unfounded accusations over the last couple of weeks is not "long term", but it is quite obviously my proposal that you cease this behavior. I had hoped that after your actions were criticized at the last WQA that you would conduct yourself more appropriately. Good-bye, until the next time your incivility is directed at editors on pages which I watch.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be having a problem with sticking to your commitment to leave me alone, in fact your statement looks like you are planning to obsessively hound me. To help you out, I will remove any further comments you make on my talk page without any reply. If you wish to contact me about matters that are not you making more threats or stalking me, then feel free to email me instead. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Don't really know to where to go, or whom to consult, this guy scares the crap out of me. Check out recent edit history. Blake Burba (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Taken care of. Blake Burba (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Should you have further worries, please drop me an email in confidence. If I am unsure how to help, I can always put you in touch with people who probably can. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

sock after being blocked

sock after being blocked . I believe this is the same user [11] whom User:Jac16888 had blocked, with a new account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Indiansintheass as he is using the same content and similar names. Just wnated to inform you.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Account has been blocked as a blatant vandalism only account. Let's hope they get a bit bored soon. The vandalism makes no sense to me, does it relate to claims about any living person? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• also consider blocking the username as done here [12] seems like this guy is an old player -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• yes your guess is absolutely correct. refer this article [13] -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone else got there first, these are quite easy to spot, thanks for the context. This person would have some impact if they engaged in sensible discussion of the dispute. As for the latest username, I'm all for Indians making love, but this was an obvious failure of Username policy. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, i am glad to see how quickly the are rocketed to Banland. lets do hope they get bored, isnt there a way to prevent them from creating account for some time till they become normal ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP address or range could be blocked but even that would not stop new account creation. The rude name variations get flagged at Usernames for administrator attention by a bot and any damage to related articles is likely to be reverted by the click of a button quite rapidly. I'd just let our system do its thing and let this person shout into the void for a little. It is a pity they do not want to engage with the topic in a way that makes a difference, or any sense. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Harassment

Fae, I am sorry that you still seem to be undergoing harassment on enwp, and I am sickened by the fact that the Arbcom is totally spineless in doing anything about it. As someone who has undergone systematic and serial harassment myself in the past on this project, I am just letting you know that this is not on; one would have thought the community would have learned by now; but no, this community really does not give a shit. Ignore the trolls and keep doing what you are doing! Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 13:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it is nice to know there are people around who can see that off-wiki harassment and threats being allowed to propagate onto Wikimedia projects is a serious problem for our whole community. It would be excellent if our processes could improve in a way that can reduce harassment of minority groups and find a way of making contributors in good standing feel they can work with others in a safe and positive environment. Recognizing that anyone making, or encouraging others to make, serious false allegations off-wiki (such as my experience of being called a sexual pervert, fraud, adulterer and naming my husband as part of these allegations) should never be allowed to continue engaging with the same editors they are harassing through their Wikimedia accounts would be a great start. I take your advice seriously and will try to ignore the trolls and the blatant travelling circus that continues to be canvassed off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec):I'll second that. "Sanctimonious twaddle" is one thought that's occurred to me. If inviting someone to fall on their sword, i.e. "do the Roman thing", isn't a personal attack, what is? As I see it, it's just a fancy way of saying "fuck off and die". Nortonius (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be associated with those who support you. Whenever we have interacted those interactions have always been to the highest standard of behaviour. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to VM, I think he was referring to how Cincinnatus stepped down from power after accomplishing his goals. If he was referring to the practice of suicide after disgrace, VM would have said "Do the Spartan thing." Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually at the time I was thinking more of Sulla but ok, with a stretch, Cincinnatus would work. I could've said "Nixonian thing" but I'm not sure if that would've been appropriate/accurate either.VolunteerMarek 15:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

or he was talking about Brutus8.14.165.3 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "I often do the Roman thing, when not doing the C12th – 15th Spanish thing, and have a beautiful outfit made from handwoven silk. "[14]. "why Don't we do the Roman thing and Grant citizenship to those who do military service?"[15][16]. "It is temptingly easy to do the Roman thing - to hire a scooter (eg from Scooters for Rent, Via Cavour 199) - and ridiculously easy to fall off."[17]"I almost wanted to do the Roman-thing and puke everything up so I could eat everything all over again but luckily I managed to restrain myself."[18].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• lol – all very interesting! But, I'm not sure I see the relevance, e.g. with Cincinnatus: surely in the present situation only Fæ knows if he's "[accomplished] his goals", so how could Fæ logically be asked to "resign" on those grounds? (not that there seems to be much logic in the original issue anyway, IMHO!) The only reasonable interpretation I've seen here so far is a reference to Brutus, per 8.14.165.3 above, and see e.g. here. Nortonius (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It its obviously commonly used to mean simply "do the right thing" (even if uunpleasant).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then, that's news to me! I've never seen or heard it used that way – the examples you give above refer to doing "particular things associated with ancient and modern Romans", e.g. "hire a scooter", which could be entirely fun and would be one option of many, including staying where you are! It's only "unpleasant" if you're unfortunate enough to do it and fall off! :o) Nortonius (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins

Hiya Fae. I posted a comment to User talk:Slp1#Hawkins that is directed at yourself just as much as User:Slp1, so I just wanted to drop a note here to notify you of that. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Fae,

re: the AfD comment I made. I don't know, I guess I was just thinking outloud there. I've seen a lot of stuff over the last couple months that I just thought was not quite right. (the RfC, the "queer agenda" threads, etc.) I guess I'm saying there's a lot of wrong posts going on from both sides. I'm not sure that essay should be kept, but I did get some good intent from it. I've been called homophobic before, and that has hurt me - although I understand why. I don't know, just wanted to post my thoughts there. If there's something you want to talk about, you are always welcome at my talk or my email. Either way, I wish you the best. — Ched :  ?  15:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Microvisk

Hi

Since you seem to be somewhat of an expert here, is there a wiki friendly way of letting people know who we are without it looking too much like advertising, I note all our competitors have pages on here, some less agressive than others, can you let me know wher I am going wrong, if indeed I am.

Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich microvisk (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'll reply on your talk page shortly. Cheers Fæ (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann–La Roche

This is what I am trying to emulate, they are a competitor of ours, not sure how my post is significantly more commercial...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich microvisk (talk • contribs) 11:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

This edit was unacceptable. It contained a very serious personal attack and you should strike it immediately. Furthermore, you really must stop calling other people homophobes or implying they are, unless you are 100% sure. It can be incredibly offensive to be branded as a homophobe, or a racist etc. I know from experience. During a recent ArbCom case, the Committee stated per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process. In this case, you were most definitely not expressing your concerns in a reasonable manner and neither is Jimbo Wales' talk page part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. This is not the first time you've acted like this and so, please be aware that, since I consider it extremely inappropriate, if you persevere I'll have to start an ArbCom case against you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio, I was simply reacting honestly to ErrantX's statement I'm a well known critic of large swathes of the LGBT community (which, ironically, means they assume I am not part of that commmunity); they are objectionable, annoying and do as much to put back progressive views of homosexuality as the real homophobes.. To label a complete minority group as annoying and objectionable seems rather strange don't you think? If one were to replace "LGBT community" with "Jews" or "Black people", there might be more critical reaction from those with a duty of care for Wikipedia. If I am not to be allowed to raise my objections in the place where such strange comments are raised, could you advise me on the effective and efficient recommended whistle-blower process to follow.

Threatening Arbcom cases against someone who makes it clear that they are disturbed by defamation of a minority group, seems a pointlessly bureaucratic response rather than dealing with the root cause of the problem. I also note that Jimbo recently stated that the normal Wikipedia policies do not apply to his user talk page, though perhaps that is a matter you should raise with him. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have no intention of spending time with Arbcom cases, I have raised the matter at AN[19]. Hopefully it will close without any action but will resolve your concerns that I must be forced to follow a formal DR process in order to make any comment on matters of defamation. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not really what I meant, but, meh, what's done is done. What I actually meant is that you should stop hurling around accusations of homophobia with such nonchalance; it's not a matter of venue. Those accusations are serious and should only be made when one is 100% sure that the other person is a homophobe (or a racist etc.). Not everyone who disagrees with you or even expresses an idea you don't like is a homophobe out to harass you or any other LGBT editor. By the by, my being a member of the Oversight team has nothing to do with the fact that I find it objectionable that you are sometimes too quick to label other editors as homophobe. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you supply a diff of where I accused someone of being a homophobe? I believe you are creating a parody of events. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on Fae, we can all read. You dropped a massive one when you went after Errant [20] on Jimbo's talkpage, and running off to WP:AN hasn't exactly made you look any better. You need to tone it down. Adding - I know you have been the subject of some really nasty attacks both on and off wiki, and this has probably raised your sensitivity. But honestly, you do need to keep your powder dry here. You're going after people who are not attacking you because of your sexuality with accusations that need to be kept for that eventuality (which comes round far too often, I agree). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My words merely mirrored the language that Errant and others have been defending per WP:HOMO. That essay is a defence of any editor that wanted to refer to other editors they thought might be gay as "queers". It can also be seen that multiple editors are making claims that I am calling people homophobes, including Salvio who has threatened an Arbcom case for doing so. This is a parody of my statements, hence nobody will provide a diff showing this. As for "running to AN", Salvio gave me that steer by his quote "The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process" thereby forcing my hand. If there is an Arbcom case here what exactly would it be for, someone concerned about general defamation of LGBT Wikipedians trying to raise the issue with firm rhetoric and then being incorrectly accused of calling everyone homophobes?

You can reply if you want to, but I'm going to give it at least 24 hours before any further post from me on this matter. As well as an emotional stop, I believe I need some time to reflect on why we have escalated from a member of Oversight approaching me here, to an active Arbcom member with full awareness of who is interested in this page, deciding they need to publicly intervene now, after 7 weeks of email silence, rather than providing suitable advice in confidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, in a recent ANI discussion, you stated "No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse". Let me know if you need more examples. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not helping. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen, well it's been a few days.

My thoughts are that I find it odd that the only times that Salvio giuliano has wanted to say anything on my user talk page was to treat my questioning of him dubiously giving a jolly wink and "bum" reference after unblocking Youreallycan as an accusation of homophobia, and now we see him flying in to make similar claims in a discussion (about an essay created as a result of the Youreallycan block which involved dismissing the opinion of another editor because he thought they had a queer agenda) he was not involved with at that point and he only inflamed. In the light of Salvio's multiple contributions in the RFC/U that Delicious carbuncle raised against me where he !voted several times to get my admin status revoked (based on no relevant evidence), and Salvio's support of outing me against the clean start policy, makes for an interesting pattern here.

That my long term stalker (how else would you describe someone that raised so many offensive threads about me on Wikipedia Review?) Delicious carbuncle has also been the only person to comment after seeing your name on my talk page, makes this interplay even more interesting. Considering the confidential facts that you have as a current Arbcom member with regard to my being stalked, harassed and threatened, I am still astonished that you prefer to criticise me publicly here based on dubious threats of Arbcom action by a current Oversight member, Salvio, and as a result can be seen to have encouraged Delicious carbuncle.

If you believe that Salvio has a right to go around making threats of Arbcom cases rather than just raising the case with Arbcom, it would be nice to have his status as the Arbcom special police confirmed by an active Arbcom member. As a side-note, Salvio removed the option of being an administrator open to recall yesterday, an interesting choice in the light that I offer my fellow Wikipedians this easy way of holding me to account. I guess Salvio would rather use the ultimate hammer of Arbcom to deal with what he feels are issues created due to my perspective as an openly gay man; rather than attempt to use the simple recall process that he is not comfortable to apply for his own actions.

After taking the time to look into Salvio's track record, I would not be happy to respond to any more questions or similar threats of action on my talk page. If Salvio wants to keep on following me with an apparent single focus on LGBT topics, I suggest they stick to using recognized Dispute resolution processes. As a member of Oversight, I would have thought there were more useful things to spend their time on. Fæ (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fae, any comments I make here relate only to what you were saying onwiki when I said them. If I wanted to say anything about any confidential matter you may have raised in an email, I would say it in an email. If you want to open an ANI/RFC/RfAR against Salvio, DC, Youreallycan or anyone else, please do so. What is disruptive (from any editor) is repeatedly making vague or unsupported allegations in other venues, which is I think what Salvio was trying to get at. See Principle 1 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Salvio what he meant if you are unsure. I don't know why you are intervening here if you need to clarify that. As for your advice to follow dispute resolution, you might have considered giving that friendly advice to Salvio when it is obvious that he is the one with a complaint here on my page, not me, and that was the exact same point in my last paragraph. I have not read the Ottava Rima restrictions case, it seems strange to me that you might expect me to do so, unless the only point of including it was to parody me as being disruptive in the same way as Ottava Rima and you are implying that you would like to have me banned. As Arbcom are too busy to give me a decent polite reply by email, I am not expecting yet more posts from you here as I am sure you have real things to deal with, rather than just winding me up when there is no evidence that I have done anything wrong. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

Please see the following: User talk:Montanalions, probably a sock of User:Catcreekcitycouncil, User:Timothyjohnson12 and User:Catcreek, on a crusade to introduce extraneous and possibly erroneous material into the article. Has already reverted the article to introduce a history section. "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope ..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

As you have raised this with a couple of other admins and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, I'll leave it to someone else to take a look. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears to be a sock, and is so insistent that they have an authoritative source to back up a claim, that I am beginning to wonder if there is some validity to the claim that lions exist in Montana. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at User_talk:Ale_jrb/Scripts/igloo.
Message added 00:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Block

For some reason, I didn't see your block of Ghostprotocol888 (talk · contribs) until after I superseded it with my block. Probably for the best though, seeing as you also reverted. Tiptoety ^talk 06:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I did revert, so I ought to be more cautious about exactly when to step in, though that was in the context of 3RR being breached by this user some time ago and the page history being unambiguous. I'd probably argue IAR and a touch of common sense in this case were anyone to worry about it. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is welcome news. A big thank you to the smart folks that have made this possible. --Fæ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Explaining the Q-word

Hi, Wikid77 here. I am sorry for all the upset when writing about "Queer as Folk" because I had no idea that the word was considered so offensive outside the U.S. We need some kind of article to explain the history of slurs (such as "History of anti-LGBT slurs" or such), to remind people how hate speech has been used in various regions. I read the article 'Queer' and it hinted at a dark past, but I think adding too much darker text, to that article, could ruin the neutral view of the word, and slant the article towards rehashing of hate speech. However, a separate historical article could be used to really explain the dark past. One source indicated the Q-word could get people arrested years ago, which was a total shock to me. I am writing to you, because some other editors have mentioned they have friends and family members in the LGBTQI community, and there are editors willing to help.

Here, in the U.S., the local version of the TV show, "Queer as Folk (North American TV series)" ran for about 6 years on American cable TV. That means the people staying at "every motel in America" could watch that TV show for 6 years. People here heard about "Queer as Folk" years before "Wikipedia" became famous. All these years after Queer Nation, as you likely know, now there are numerous university student groups, such as "Columbia Queer Alliance" (NYC) or "Brown Queer Alliance" at Brown University (RI), and in California, the UCLAQueerAlliance or at City College of San Francisco, the Queer Alliance student group and a Queer Resource Center on campus. Likewise, there are "Student unions" such as "Queer Student Cultural Center" (Minnesota). See student groups: "Google search queer student". However, all those student groups do not warn of the dark past, and so perhaps, there should be an article as "History of anti-LGBT slurs" or similar. Perhaps that would be workable, or maybe some other editors could assist. I don't know yet. I think it would help in clarifying what you have been trying to explain. Other editors simply did not know the past. Please give it some thought. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Context for talk page stalkers: This question from Wikid77 relates to the essay s/he created WP:HOMO (shortcut now deleted due to potential to cause offence) under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid word homophobic which may have been used to legitimize labelling any LGBT editor (or those thought to be LGBT) as a queer or to openly speculate if they had a queer agenda if they edited or commented on LGBT related articles.

See above. I am being actively stalked by some malicious people who routinely post offensive comments about me and my gay life off-wiki and I have a member of Oversight threatening me with an Arbcom case and an active Arbcom member comparing me to Ottava Rima because I dared to make it clear that defamation was unacceptable. This does not encourage me to get involved in a discussion about why queer is offensive, defamatory and will be seen as homophobic if used as a descriptive term out of context.

The way I read the advice from Elen an Salvio above, is that I am better off staying silent, "keep my powder dry" and avoid collaborative discussion and just go straight to Dispute resolution as soon as I see anyone using queer or using similar terms in a defamatory way. I am sure if we end up with a track record of sufficient cases opened at Administrators' noticeboard this will clarify the position of the community. Be assured I will take this line if it is the only one left open to me on Wikipedia, if you wish to start routinely using queer in the way you envisage, then please do come back and point me to where you have done this, as I would not want to miss the opportunity to create suitable test cases to move this forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite martyr material yet Fae. Given that what prompted both mine and Salvio's comments was your vitriolic attack on a member of the LGBT community who had the temerity to say that he thought the LGBT community was a bit up itself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen, how nice for you to spend more of your valuable time writing spontaneously on my talk page to express your opinions and keeping this conversation going rather than letting it die off naturally.

You are misquoting. Being "a bit up itself" was not mentioned, though presumably you would be perfectly comfortable with members of our Wikipedia community enjoying the benefits of free speech, to say things such as the LGBT community is "a bit up itself", that in other places would be considered to be defaming LGBT editors as a group. What was actually stated was "I'm a well known critic of large swathes of the LGBT community (which, ironically, means they assume I am not part of that community); they are objectionable, annoying and do as much to put back progressive views of homosexuality as the real homophobes." It seems hard to read calling the LGBT community objectionable and annoying as anything but defamatory. If someone said that Jews or Blacks are objectionable and annoying, I doubt that we would have an active Arbcom member getting involved and making a joke of the whistleblower by calling them a "martyr"; at least I assume you intend that parody as some sort of joke. I have pointed out that I have backed off because of direct interference here by an active Arcom member, what else would you like me to say? Thanks for your continued interest in ensuring my freedom to join in discussion is limited on Wikipedia, so that I am protected from saying anything that might potentially offend anyone who self-declares themselves as having "problems" with that "LGBT community". --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire. I find it highly objectional when someone plays the racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/anti-religious/fundamentalist/anti this/pro that card to avoid examination of their own behaviour, or of the behaviour of their group, clan, religion or nation. Nothing Errant said was a homophibic attack, it was his opinion of his own community. You need to stop regarding every opinion that you don't 100% agree with as a personal attack on you. All you are doing is painting yourself into a really small corner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen, are you here because Salvio threatened me with an Arcom case or for some other reason? By the way, the word you were looking for was homophobic; as for ErrantX's "community", I personally avoid making such assumptions if the editor involved has not clearly identified themselves as such.

Don't feel that you are obliged to answer, I'd much, much rather you found something else to occupy your time (such as all that important Arbcom work you need to do) rather than winding me up and finding ways to cleverly insult me by calling me a martyr (by using the edit comment "a martyr's crown"), comparing me to Ottava Rima, or marginalizing me as playing the "homophobia card". If you have a problem, my talk page is not the way for you to get it out of your system. Bye --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghostprotocol888

Hi Fæ, this is just a quick note to let you know that I've extended the duration of the block you imposed on Ghostprotocol888 (talk · contribs) to indefinite due to the battleground mentality they've demonstrated since being blocked. I hope that this is OK; please feel free to re-set the block duration if you disagree. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I would rather recuse myself if the blocked person is making me a target rather than dealing with the issue of their behaviour. In this case, they certainly do seem locked into their viewpoint and unable to hear why their disruption is against policy; a necessary outcome that they can appeal against if they take time to rethink the issue. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Retirement

For those of my talk page watchers that have not spotted Fastily's retirement statement, it is worth taking a moment to read - Link here. --Fæ (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear

There are a few extremely mean-spirited people on Wikipedia. I guess that is inevitable when you consider how easy it is to become an editor. I am extremely sorry for any personal hurt you may have experienced. I thought this kind of thing was protected by Federal Law. I guess I was wrong.

You do good work here. Do not quit!!!! We need good editors. Mugginsx (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind thoughts, it's much appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Do you still hold your opposition for the existence of the list? Regarding the reliability of BOI? Secret of success (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless BOI has changed their explanations of where their numbers come from (I have not checked, but I would doubt it). I'm going to avoid getting involved though, too much on my plate at the moment. If there are any new facts to bring to the table, then Moonriddengirl is absolutely the best person to ask for an opinion. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No new facts, for that matter, but I went through the recent Afd's of that article and I find the arguments to 'keep' extremely canker, that heavy amount of coverage in newspapers can overrule the fact that it is a primary source. As per our guidelines, I believe it is highly recommended that we refrain from using primary sources, and the last thing we want is an article entirely based on that. Well, I understand why you tend to stay away from that page, and I'll try to do something. Thanks for your help. :-) Secret of success (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Critics and MyWikiBiz

I was just reading an illuminating Signpost article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-16/Paid editing. I had not understood that the Greg Kohs whose article was such a problem for you was actually involved in MyWikiBiz and had come into conflict with Wikipedia over paid editing issues. What this makes me wonder is - are any of the other editors who have recently been piling on the critiques at WR or on Jimbo's page also part of this same business or industry? I've always seen issues like on Talk:Touré (the latest spot they've gathered) as straight inclusionism versus deletionism, overwrought moralism against completeness, but is it possible there are actual paying clients involved, and these actions are at least partly genuine PR actions? Wnt (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to become a bigger, more foolish or even more blatantly homosexual target that I already am for my stalkers. However, you might want to consider that the big PR folks are a different class of beast to some of the obvious paid editors you have mentioned, and it seriously does not help to confuse planned and deep manipulation of the encyclopaedia with minor conflict of interest issues such as expert Museum curators trying to improve articles. Wikimedia UK is building relationships with folks like the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and we hope to move their view of the world and best practice on by open discussion and training, so they can establish an ethical approach to asking for factual corrections rather than being tempted to manipulate from the shadows. Be assured it goes on, and doubtless in the future there will be newsworthy cases to flap about. In general, I would much, much rather see such exposures as the start of an open and grown-up dialogue rather than running around in circles screaming and shouting, enjoyable as some of us seem to find it. --Fæ (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the response ... just wish I understood it. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No need...History2007 misunderstand and complains as usual

There's a misunderstanding. There was no "declaration" of war...merely a prediction that there would be warring going on....BY OTHERS. I never said "I will war on this". I said clearly, I will NOT violate any WP rules or policies. History2007 is a whiner and has personal bias against me, and is whining on this page...instead of talking to me directly to understand what I meant. Not cool. But then he's not cool. Instead of focusing on the substance of the dispute and the edit problem, he harps and nit-picks on this nonsense, only to get me in trouble. A real class act. I said clearly I won't violate 3RR, and will leave this whole thing to others after this weekend. The "war" I mentioned was a PREDICTION, because I know how others are gonna be acting. Not a "declaration". History2007, as usual, over-reacts, and whines, and wastes my time. Not cool. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for dropping me this note. I'll mark this up as poor communication, I hope you appreciate how such a comment looks like a threat to others, please try to avoid winding others up in this way. You appear experienced enough to be aware of The three-revert rule, BOLD and Civility so I can't see much point in giving you warnings. If you are having difficulty understanding History2007's point of view, please consider one of the neat Dispute resolution processes such as Third opinion which can be helpful and avoid falling into unpleasently personal conflict.

As you have deleted the ANI notice from your talk page, and History2007 has removed your comments from their page, I will treat this note on my page as your suitable notice that there is a problem and that you have had friendly advice from an administrator. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the substance of the dispute and the edit problem, History2007, out of personal bias against me, harps and nit-picks on this nonsense, only to get me in trouble. A real class act. I said clearly I won't violate 3RR, and will leave this whole thing to others after this weekend. The "war" I mentioned was a PREDICTION, of what others will probably do, not a "declaration" by me. I keep to WP policy. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you caught

that I was using hyperbole when I used the word corrupt on Jimbo's page. I think the debate over pay and promotion is just a bit silly, and I was deliberately being a bit over the top just to make the point that maybe people should just relax. It is easy to see when something is truly unethical and instead we're having this debate over trifles. -- Avanu (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did catch it and your comments elsewhere have helped; my reply was directed at Franamax though I did use your wording. It is unfortunate that some have lost perspective or any sense of humour on this issue (as doubtless I do sometimes), it's also rather unfortunate that I am not able to engage in the discussion without one of my long term stalkers turning up to have a go at muddying the water and trying to hurt me. Not unexpected I guess, though I still find myself unable to fathom why over such a long period, they would remain so attracted or otherwise obsessed, with someone as non-notable as me. Very creepy indeed.

By the way, you may find this closely related discussion of interest Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Sue Gardner's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fæ and MBisanz and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz I specifically asked you not to use this as a way of tormenting me and yet you have. You lack of respect for my personal life or wellbeing is breath taking. I am preparing to go to a Wikimedia related meeting in another country on Thursday and Friday so don't expect me to make this a top priority when it is, frankly, a massive waste of my time over an issue that you have deliberately inflated to the nth degree, and could have been resolved by private email discussion had you allowed me to do so. Your behaviour today has been totally bizarre and threatening. --Fæ (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Fæ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately raising multiple processes in parallel. You know better as a trusted user, so your actions appear to be deliberate to hound or harass me. Don't be a dick would be good advice if you were not a bureaucrat and therefore trusted to behave better for our community than this. Shame on you. --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sig comment

I saw your new signature at AN and just wanted to remind you that images are not permitted in signatures per Wikipedia:SIG#Images. You might try adding the following code to get the same effect with text <span style='color: #FF00FF;'>'''▲'''</span>, which shows up as ▲. Hope that helps. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Or indeed since the orientation is important (or rather, essential) ▼. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, your apparently obsessive behaviour, including your inability to recognize that your appalling treatment of my personal correspondence from several months ago involving a serious matter failed to show me human decency or personal respect, and your multiple pointless harassing warnings my user talk page are highly disturbing. Go back to the AN thread you seem so interested in and read it properly. No image has ever been part of my signature. For someone with trusted status, your failure of judgement in raising a blatantly out of process RFAR, a pointless and out of process WQA thread (as it was raised in parallel with the open RFAR) and now issuing incorrect warnings about things that never happened, seems to look like a pattern of incompetence when it comes to your ability to look rationally at my contributions to Wikipedia. If you have personal problems with me, I urge you to raise these with an administrator you trust independently to review, so they can contact me instead of you. If you have problems with me as a trustee of Wikimedia UK, please raise these with the UK Chief Executive, details at wmuk:Contact us.

Please go away, seriously, I can see no possible good coming from you writing here again with further warnings or unwanted advice, and it now looks as though you are on a personal campaign to hamper my enjoyment of this project. To ensure you understand that, I will remove any comment from here on you make to this page and will not reply to your questions. --Fæ (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

o_O Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

An image was clearly part of your signature in this section, specifically File:Pink triangle.svg, which renders as . You signed with an image about ten times. As MBisanz says, we don't allow images in user signatures. We somewhat allow political statements, I guess, but you should probably remove that part too.

Your response to MBisanz's note was inappropriate. Writing long paragraphs doesn't obscure the fact that you were wrong. Just say "okay, I won't use images in the future, thanks for the note" and move on. Attempting to dramatize the situation serves no one. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Go back and read the AN thread properly, the example text was never part of my signature, I clearly stated that. By the way, Wikipediocracy is not a political movement. --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the same time though, there's something to be said for not poking the bear. If MBisanz was as prominently involved in a conflict with Fae as Fae suggests, MBisanz may not have been the best person to come comment on this user's signature. I'm not privy to the conflict Fae refers to, but just something to keep in mind in general. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Struck the clearly bit, I am still convinced I said it somewhere but can't see it myself now, probably due to being tired and it's past my bedtime. The image and text was used inconsistently if you check the times of posting in that thread, it was never a standard signature but a marker text to show that I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. My signature remains unchanged and has always been uncustomized, it is what you see here after the dashes and is identical on AN. Your Wikipedia signature is interpreted to be what you set in your signature preferences per WP:CUSTOMSIG, this was not the case on AN where the inconsistencies were obvious to see. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reinstated clearly as now my eyes are less tired, I find my statement on AN easy to find. I said in that same discussion:

By the way, it's not my signature, only a demonstration that the majority of people posting in this thread so far are Wikipediocracy members which may indicate that we have a problem with the Administrator's Noticeboard being manipulated by a tag team.

--Fæ (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEMONSTRATION --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be shouting, not ideal if you are attempting to advise me on civil behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of other users that have symbols in their signatures. Why they're targeting you is hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, well there does seem to be a pattern on Wikipedia. Any time something has the look of LGBT positive messages, some people seem to behave rather strangely. The pink triangle is probably the real issue here, don't you think? Thank goodness we can safely assume none of this has anything to do with my personal life. What is really bizarre is that I have never, at any time, had an image, of any kind, in my signature. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly vast anti-gay conspiracy. I do hope you can get to the bottom of it eventually.

You've most certainly used images as a part of your signature (there are diffs, you realize?). I'm grateful that you've stopped, however. In addition to being against policy, the image was needlessly distracting.

Thank you for your replies, Fæ. I can tell that the death of your computer has really hampered your ability to edit, so I appreciate the extra effort. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you check my edits, even with chapter business going on I manage between 1,000 to 2,000 edits per month but it has dropped like a stone over the last few weeks. Having intermittent problems has been a real drag and hard to diagnose. I'll probably have to swap out my memory rather than getting a new machine, running long term diagnostics to make sure before forking out hard cash. By the way, any diffs will just support my statements above. My signature is as it has always been as you can see at the end of this sentence.

As for joking about LGBT problems on Wikipedia, it would be pretty odd if nobody within the massive numbers of our contributors had any problems with corresponding with LGBT people. To write off any concerns that this may, from time to time, be an issue as some sort of nutty vast anti-gay conspiracy is to deny a fact of life. As someone approaching 50 who over the years has had friends beaten unconscious and permanently disfigured during homophobic attacks, and known people who were murdered just for being thought to be gay, you might give me a bit of space to have minor concerns about odd patterns of behaviour on Wikimedia projects any time LGBT issues become involved. --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: You know of other users who have symbols in their user signatures... such as yourself? The issue isn't using symbols, it's using images. And please do not make this out to be a case of Fæ being targeted. It'll only fuel the conspiracy theories. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about editors who use little hearts, clubs, airplanes, and such as that. Regarding my signature, do you mean the little arrows? That's for some separation. Is there something else I should use? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I expect you're talking about this:

Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If he's no longer using that pink triangle thing, and assuming it even was part of his signature and not just something he pasted in, then that would seem to close the issue. Although I would still like to know why tiny svg items are OK for one user and not another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See the double dash? That's a standard separator between a signature and the sentence. If you look at MZMcBride's signature, it uses the same standard and is a bit of an obvious give away. --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Lots of folks use it. Oddly enough, it's not the n-dash or m-dash or whatever it is that certain editors obsess over. Anyway, no one has ever griped about my arrows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't hassled you over "Fæ" vs. "Fae". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I daresay one of my Wikipediocracy stalkers is trying find some daft mug to do this on their behalf. As it happens, Fae is my doppelgänger, for obvious reasons. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, please don't let yourself be trolled! You're in the right here (repeating yourself a few times in one conversation is different from a signature) but their confusion is not obviously unreasonable. It's a minor point and only needs a minor response. Incidentally, if you wanted to use it, Worm that turned's code can be tweaked a bit closer to yours at ▼, though it still seems a little narrow-hipped to me. Wnt (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the complainant could explain why your little triangle is so horrible, while this gaudy signature[21] is somehow OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To everybody in a nutshell: Fæ has told us all that Fæ was pasting this in just before Fæ's signature. I'm not sure why everybody obsessing about it. Symbols and images can be used as long as it's not an image file. That means Clubs, Spades, Diamonds, Hearts, arrows, and triangles can all be used as long as it's not being drawn from an image file.

To Fæ: I would suggest to you when doing that next time to try and not paste it front of your signature to avoid these kinds of conflicts because to post do look a little suspicious.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

British Library

Hi!

This is just to let you know that I've just recently started as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library, building off the 2011 British Library project which you participated in. I'll be working here full-time for the next six months; I'm still meeting people here to discuss projects that they're interested in working on, but if you've any suggestions, please do let me know!

We've currently got two events in the calendar:

• World War I Editathon, 16 June - organised jointly with JISC
• GLAM-WIKI 2012, 14-15 September - conference hosted by WMUK and the British Library

and I'm in the process of restarting the individual collaborations program - there's currently one article with a specialist looking for a Wikipedian, and hopefully I'll be adding more over the next few days.

(I'm planning to use the old participants list for any future messages - if you'd rather not be contacted, please leave a note there.)

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sending around the update. You may want to ping a note on the Wikimediauk email list so that more interested folks know where to sign up for on-wiki updates. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya!

Can we be friends? Arcandam (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I always think of debate and disagreement on-wiki as completely separate from respect for the person, and the opportunity to make friends in our strange collaborative space. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whooohoo! Remember, we may disagree now, but there are plenty of other things we (probably) agree about. I believe Sceptre is capable of answering the three questions I asked him at WP:ANI in such a way that I don't have to worry that this will ever happen again. Arcandam (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. It seems User:Fæ/events contains an error BTW.

Thanks for pointing out the error. My page is fine, however some prawn has broken {{dts}}. Too busy to investigate this week, so I'll cross my fingers and hope some template gnome sorts this out. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be pretty hard to fix. Sorry, I do not have enough template expertise to fix this, it probably needs to reverted to an old version, but I do not know which one. Arcandam (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Sorry the talkback on twinkle didn't leave the message I intended. I just wanted to make you aware I've replied to User_AndyTheGrump_continues_with_personal_attacks, the diffs are not new. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did indeed make an error and I'm grateful you pointed it out. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I made the same mistake when I first saw it too. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is my honour:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Fae, this is for your bravery at the ANI, the willingness to stand up to the abusive bullies who hold the majority there.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You deserve two commendations ... plus I just love the rainbow in this one. —Djathinkimacowboy 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. After a couple of days to think about it, I'm still disgusted at how a small number of people contributing to the ANI thread are arguing that telling anyone to fuck off with their queer agenda could be described as anything other than blatantly homophobic. I have raised the problem of unacceptable homophobia on Wikipedia with a couple of the WMF board members I had personal chats with at the Berlin Chapters Conference this weekend. --Fæ (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite toolbar

The "Cite" option in the toolbar is missing most of the times in the window while editing. I can't figure out the issue. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

You might notice I've jumped in a bit to help at RFPP, a first for me. All the backlog notices convinced me I needed to at least try to help a bit. Feel free to trout me if I screwed up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gok Wan

You seem to be paying attention to Gok Wan

Wikimedia just received an email noting that there are references to Kyle Greaves. I'm guessing it is some missed vandalism. It may be simple to fix, but someone who has looked at the article before will be more cognizant of the issues.

Would you be willing to take a look?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Working on it. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is done, mentions of the false name have been removed and I'll keep in on my watchlist for the moment. The level of vandalism over the last few weeks does not seem high enough for long term semi-protection. --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please Have A Look

I have no intention of vandalising on any pages regarding or whatsoever. This is only a process of removal of content to be moved/referred which is the Infobox Station. Yes, I should have insert a better edit summary instead of duplicating it over and over, mostly on all of my recent edits. I hope you can understand that this is not a vandalism or any sarcastic kind of edits towards pages. Sni56996 (Talk) 12:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken off the user notice from your page. Your edit was picked up by WP:IGLOO as possible vandalism due to the stray "m" added after the end of a sentence. I am happy to take your word this was a glitch. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed in Jimbo

Obviously I'm disappointed in Jimbo for this - especially considering he failed to react to User:Volunteer Marek's extraordinarily hostile comments in that same conversation. Still, as I've said once before, please, don't let yourself be trolled! It may be that there are very different standards for different people; that there has been appalling comments made about you by various people out of prejudice. But as long as you are what you are and do what you do, that is your victory. Don't let their jibes and fallacies provoke you into saying things you wouldn't ordinarily say that they can then claim as "ammo" against you. Good luck, and my sympathies! Wnt (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Fae's ability to serve as administrator. As you are involved, it is recommended that you recuse but do not have to. You are free to participate in discussions. Please keep them civil and constructive. The thread is User:Fae. Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Restrictions to other talk-pages

WRT the User_talk:Jimbo, I recall that he strongly dislikes any comments or suggestions which tend to censor, or drive people away, at his talk-page. I think you have some good ideas (well, most times!), and so perhaps an apology would alleviate stress in returning to that page. Recently, some other people have been asked to stay away from that page, so not just an issue with you, though I guess it might seem insulting. I try to dismiss it as "typical Leo behavior" to wait until a large crowd gathers and then announce a criticism (a la Madonna Ciccone), when remarks would be better made in private. I think the key is to discuss only, without suggesting people stop posting to that page. Just FYI. -Wikid77 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI Editathon

Hi Fae,

I don't know if you've decided yet whether or not you'll be attending the World War I editathon, but if you're still interested, there are definitely places available.

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Close...

Hi Fae! I fully endorse your action at Light-year - indeed, I was drawn there by the protection request, but decided to edit and discuss the article instead of handling the protection request. But you very slightly missed the point. It's not metric vs. imperial, is metric (m) vs. metric (km) - arguably, even more trivial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that was the main discussion, I was probably over interpreting recent edits that were in the comparison to other measurements section (including miles). I'm happy to let it ride either way, particularly as some folks can't stand the use of the convert template where it's not really needed. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiversity

I heard a very good interview on the BBC yesterday about the Monmouth effort (send my kudos along to Ashley!), but I was a bit stunned to hear him bring up Wikiversity (which our mutual good friend Jimbo once described as "the wild west of wikimedia"). Wikiversity is in pretty bad shape (has been for a while), and I noticed that you haven't really had any experience there. Wikiversity is badly understaffed, and would definitely benefit if you could spare some "gnome-admin" time. The rules are different there, so I can make you an admin tomorrow as long as you agree to take it slow and allow me to review your button usage.

Among other things, WV's different rules mean that it could host material about "local celebrities" (I understand you've had an AfD issue?), unsourced stories from the community's elders to capture oral histories (what was it like during WW2? what was it like before automobiles?), and who knows what else... I suppose the possibilities are endless.

Are you up for a plunge into the waters of the wild west ;-)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks

hi thanks for welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poklet2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Randy Bott

It is interesting that you do not like to have material deleted, but you are all too willing to delete material of others. If you dispute the material or feel there is inadequate documentation, you may so state, but you choose to wholesale delete because you do not agree with the material posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevezdude1 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The material you posted was part rant, part copied from other Wikipedia articles. It was definitely not appropriate for the biography of a living person. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that Stevezdude1 has been indefinitely blocked, so I see no benefit in replying. --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle and HIV speculation

Hi Fae, I noticed your comment that "The RFC/U was created by Delicious carbuncle (DC) in conjunction with a series of canvassing threads of Wikipedia Review that included a large number of personal allegations that then were partially duplicated on Wikipedia, in particular speculation about my sex life and HIV status was posted by DC on ANI." (emphasis mine). I would appreciate a link to this if at all possible, as I too agree that it would be a serious matter and would be very interested to see why the administrative corps did not act upon it. NW (Talk) 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations? s/he refers to and pastes material off-wiki that directly attacks my personal and professional life, speculates as to possible sexual perversions and refers to "public sex", "risky sexual practices" including explicitly a risk to health. This was obviously to be read as sexual health risks, leading on Wnt to mention HIV. Precisely the same tactic was used on the RFC/U talk page where Wnt was led on to make the obvious allegations on DC's behalf. I asked Oversight by email to remove this privacy invading discussion from ANI, they never replied. I suspect if I were the subject of a BLP, such abusive speculative sexual material would be removed. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I, as well as several other clerks and arbitrators, have reviewed your statement and the AN archive that you linked to. None of us felt that your statement was substantiated sufficiently. I am going to redact your statement. Please take this as a warning that this statement will be policed thoroughly (an arbitrator should be making a statement on behalf of the Committee shortly). Any extraordinary statement like this will require explicit diffs. NW (Talk) 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Do you know what happened to my email to oversight and who dealt with it at the time? Obviously if Wikipedia welcomes any anonymous account reposting unsourced allegations about my personal life and what possible sexual practices as a gay man I might get up to and what health risks that represents on any noticeboard, I have to reconsider how safe it is for me, or other openly LGBT Wikimedians to volunteer to support this project. --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I don't have access to the oversight queue. WP:AUSC is probably the group to ask. NW (Talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, could you please re-add the speculation about my sex life bit, that is very clearly and unambiguously supported by the link above. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, have you ever uploaded a picture of yourself to Commons? This is all I'm asking and it is related. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(In response to Fæ at 18:45) I think NuclearWarfare's comment at 18:25 makes it rather obvious that the opinion you hold about it being "clearly and unambiguously supported" isn't similarly held by the Committee or NW, and hence, the statement won't be readded. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heads up regarding case proceedure

((Hi Fæ, this is just a copy of the statement I have placed at the evidence page, provided as a courtesy SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using.

A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not).

B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following:

1)No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it." That falls under a finding that we have endorsed less then three months ago: In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, (user) has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?")

2) No speculation of off-wiki lifestyle, behavior, orientation and/or private life will be allowed. We are not a gossip site, and making such comments during the case has no purpose. We are an encyclopedia, and our editors should be treated accordingly. If users here are violating that principle elsewhere, that information should be noted briefly, factually, and directly in evidence.

3) If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued.

If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages.

We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so.

To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them.

Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers.

Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives.

For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Risky business

Okay, okay... obviously I've been waiting for ages to title a thread after that movie. I'm of that age ;-).

If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure DC's comments about "risky behavior" related to "risking one's future reputation"... along the lines of the tragic situations people have found themselves in due to "sexting", and that website (now closed, and I forget the name) where people were encouraged to submit pornographic pix of their exes as a way of getting revenge. It was a frequent topic and undercurrent at The Review, especially among those of us (like Greg and myself) who have pre-teenage daughters and feel a bit helpless about the whole thing.

I don't really know a lot about how arbcom cases work, but if I comment on the evidence page, it will pretty much be about how you tend to be very quick to label people as having bad intent (or even bigoted intent), as well as quick to assign guilt by association. I've said as much to you before, so I hope you'll consider it just a repeat of the constructive criticism I've offered in the past.

BTW: I got sucked into some horrible Wikidrama crap shortly after my father died. My only advice is to use the preview feature, and don't be too quick to reply (which is a lot harder than it sounds to people who haven't been sucked into wikidramas). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as a reasonable statement. One of the few I've read in this whole saga.  :) My only personal criticism of your comments is a continued notion from folks that there's no difference between intentional and unintentional discriminatory or perceived bigoted behavior. I will personally own up to many unintentional acts of racism, sexism, religious intolerance, homophobic and related comments - despite being a member of some of those comments, a recipient from physical, financial and attempted emotional attacks (haha..suckers..) - and an alleged "expert" (I'm still not fully sure what that means..) on some of these topics. In other words - I don't see myself as a bigot..but that doesn't mean I haven't acted bigotedly at times in my life..honestly I do not know anyone who hasn't at some point in their life. I don't know for certain - but I can speculate that a source of frustration for Fae has been people's defensiveness and inability to at least own up to how someone was impacted - however unintentionally - by their remarks. In my general experience, people very reluctant to own up to behavior others see - and I would offer this to Fae as well - is based on denial, privilege, or having found yourself surrounded by crazy people (all of which seem equally likely in my experience).  :)

It's also hard, having reviewed some people's comments (and I'll agree most, perhaps all, were off-wiki) are reasonably clear examples of crossing an obvious line. It's also been my experience that bringing harsh and public criticism upon anyone who is a visible victim of bullying is generally not the most helpful response. Again, that may be beyond Arbcoms scope, intent, whatever - but as a human, it's hard not to take into account on some level. Your comments here I felt were reasonable..some of them in evidence..maybe not as much. Even as a teenage camp counselor (this is no comparison to people's age or behavior..just a personal reflection) I knew that punishing a camper being bullied for whatever their perceived negative reaction was in nearby situations was not the most effective solution.

I don't really feel as though I have enough stake or history in this whole situation to offer evidence - and I will admit to having some bias towards being protective of folks I perceive as being bullied..regardless of the intent of the person inflicting that harm. Again - as a camp counselor I can't imagine labeling one of my former campers that were bullying as "bad" and many are amazing people to this day. However, your comment and mostly reasonable comments offered an outlet - lol - so thank you for that random vent.  :) Fae: *hugs* - as I said before - and I think SB_Johnny actually said it better (in this instance) - use the preview button. Sometimes just typing it all out..and then going back to rewrite or delete it all after sitting for 2 minutes..helps a great deal. Diplomacy, even when others are not displaying it and you have to bite your tongue, is sometimes the best way to move things forward. But I agree, that's often easier to say than it is to do.. --Varnent (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Parkour

Keeping this article clean is like running Parkour. Thanks; I think that protection is well-warranted. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, always glad to help. --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Airbus G-EUPC

I recently created Airbus G-EUPC and was rather pleased with it. I thought it might be useful for journalists, etc. Then it seems people thought it wasn't unique enough for Wikipedia (?just a paint job) and so threatened to delete it within 7 days, while I was in Italy, so I removed the request< seeking discussion on the Talk page. It seems WP doesn't require this, see Talk:Airbus G-EUPC. Now as you can see it's up for AfD (my first) for reasons that as a newbie I don't fully understand, though they seem reasonable. Deletion seems imminent. So as to not lose all the code I've created a copy at User:Lidos/Airbus G-EUPC Perhaps you'd like to add your two-pennyworth on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airbus G-EUPC and on User talk:Lidos. Thanks.--Lidos (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit distracted at the moment, but my initial reaction is that if the difference is a paint job, then the votes to merge the material to the generic article seem right even though you have done a great job creating the article. This is tricky, as if it were a custom build it probably would be kept as a stand-alone article. If you run into this sort of bother, it is worth remembering the Userfication option as an admin will invariably supply a copy of an article created in good faith if there is an opportunity for improvement. Note that a merge is not the same as a deletion, which means that if the AFD closes with a merge decision then it can be done quite amicably and need not be done in a hurry either. Merge/split discussions often get fraught, my advice is not to worry about it too much as a redirect should be added and all the encyclopaedic factual material should be preserved either way.

Despite my professional avionics experience (including the Airbus, as it happens), I tend to avoid these topics as anything related to transport already has a good number of followers. Feel free to send me an email if you would like to discuss off-line or don't really get some of the policies in play here. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Hello! This is a courtesy reminder that the evidence deadline in the Fæ arbitration case is 12 June (next Tuesday). If you desire any extension(s), please contact SirFozzie. Be keen to follow the guidelines already posted for evidence submissions. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI British Pakistanis closed with no action

To prevent any action, the ANI incident was closed by User:Bwilkins at 13:44, 19 May 2012 (dif-2473). Meanwhile, I was posting my !votes to that thread (dif-5650), and those 2nd carefully considered comments were reverted (and thrown away), rather than re-closing the thread 20 minutes later. Sorry for all the wasted effort (and it was also a huge waste of time on my part). I suspect that many ANI threads are closed-no-action to reduce the size of the ANI page. Bwilkins suggested to perhaps post to WP:RFC/U, which might be the better way to get results, without the pressure to close a detailed thread to make the ANI page smaller. No reply needed, as you have more experience in these matters than I, and you can spend your time working other issues. Thanks. -Wikid77 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to offer a belated thank-you for the courtesy notification. I always appreciate a friendly heads-up when I've been mentioned. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The post-Wikipedia world

I think it is time for people to evaluate where Wikipedia failed - how it fell victim to overbearing rules, political purges, and subsequent loss of editors (a small uptick of editors leading up to our newest biased version of American politics doesn't count). I still have no real idea of the true motivations of those who have most doggedly campaigned against the site, or who all these black names and placeholders and blocked editors on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits have been. Nonetheless, I am convinced that there is a simple explanation for it: Wikipedia's design has been flawed from the beginning. Because the site generating the content retains so much centralized control over presenting it in the future, the more content that has been added to it, the more people who come to visit it, the more valuable a property the site has become. And so we have seen a shift from honest editing and building of community resources toward power games for the domination of what the audience sees.

The result is that Wikipedia is like a great ocean liner, slowly but inexorably sinking. It is hard to believe, as we stroll through the elegantly appointed ballrooms, that tiny leaky wooden vessels tossed amid the freezing water are truly the better option. Yet that is where we are - we need third party sites that can step up and take over Wikipedia's work, so that when the site itself has become entirely a partisan political battleground, there is somewhere for a remnant of the community to intact and try to recover. But we have to make a conscious choice to launch these life-boats while it is still possible, to chop up the fine deck furniture into rafts and flotation devices, to take the opportunity to plan when and how to abandon ship.

It occurs to me that, due to your position in WMUK, you might have substantial power to make the very beginning of this process happen. I saw it was pointed out in the Arbitration that WMUK is an independent affiliate. I see that monmouthpedia.org and grwp.org are independently registered domains of WMUK. It would be possible, at first as a very small beginning, to accommodate readers from these sites with Wiki articles which include a few that are not actually part of Wikipedia. Instead of being redirected to Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA, visitors to Monmouthpedia might reach a Main Page for that site, from which many but not all of the links go to the relevant Wikipedia articles. The others might link to pages you set up locally on a server run by WMUK, or far better (in the long run) to pages which are run by independent groups of editors, each with its own admin(s) who maintain just one single page, using their own vastly stripped-down versions of Wikipedia's policies, including more generous interpretations of notability. We should look to replace Wikipedia the site with a Wiki encyclopedist community that extends freely throughout the Internet, in many countries, including on free personal Wiki servers anyone can set up easily. Instead of warring with each other by Wikilawyering, let editors contribute to sites that war with each other for readership and Wikilinks from fellow sites.

In any case, best wishes. Wnt (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's make this an opportunity to unhate!

The Fæ classy in crisis LGBT ally Barnstar!

Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community. LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm all for confronting haters back with a big dose of gayness and gay love. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed that Russavia got one also. Right above the discussion on Polandballs :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was in a talk today with Bishop Gene Robinson who has his own (severe) personal experiences of harassment and death threats over the last few years, for obvious reasons. His view was that the opposite of love is fear, not hate. It's quite a well thought out point with regard to homophobic attacks and I rather like to think our Wikimedia community could consider a positive aim of ending fear through knowledge, communication and awareness rather than reacting to hatred. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure some chap in the Bible originated that viewpoint. Something about perfect love casteth out fear...? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was using a secondary source in line with policy. --Fæ (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove message

Hello, Fæ! Seen that you've liked some of my previous works, I thought that I'd dedicate the cartoon below to you in honour of your Chairmanship of WMUK, as well as to British scientists elsewhere ;) GreyHood ^Talk 07:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the dedication. I see your have honoured Wikimedia UK by highlighting Britain's wonderful capital, our love of freedom and enterprise, our financial leadership, our world-class innovative blue-skies science programmes and, of course, our love of political parody. Now, back to my tea and biscuitz. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job on Anti-Vandalism work using Igloo today. You beat me to several reversions. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Using one of your pictures in a textbook

Mold cape detailed image.

I am thinking of using your Mold Cape detail picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mold_cape_detail.jpg) in a textbook. A detail of it would show at about 5 cm high and be credited in the legend immediately below. This being printed text (so that I can't put a working hyperlink), I wondered if you would like the credits to show any alternative/complementary information to 'Wikimedia:Fæ' (such as name, location, URL, whatever). Just in case I can also be contacted at thechabon a a a t ho tmail d o o t com. Thanks for uploading that excellent picture. Iiiiaaaa (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have updated the license slightly, the brief attribution on Wikimedia Commons is fine using the link http://enwp.org/user_talk:Fae. It would be helpful if somewhere against the image or as an endnote you also include the British Museum reference number "1836,0902.1" which would enable any researcher to find the Mold Cape on their database (here). See WP:BMREF for an explanation of that number. I am glad it is useful, I did take the image specifically to make the tooling easy to see. --Fæ (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

CIBase

Hello Fæ. Sorry if I stepped on your toes at CIBase - I didn't think A7 applied because it looks like a software package, so I went ahead and replaced it with a G11/G12 multi-tag. I re-did the warning on User talk:Kobdani as well. Feel free to revert any of those if you don't agree, or if I've missed something obvious. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, the company has the same name, so it could be read either way. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Google books

I delete sources not available in google books because it means it's impossible for me to verify what's being ascribed to them. We have a huge number of sources available in google books, and anything that's worth keeping will be in multiple sources. PiCo (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a terrible reason to delete sources. Please try verifying by using online sites such as WorldCat, the British Library or try Special:BookSources rather than just relying on Google to tell you the limits of the world's knowledge. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion shld be on the article talk page, but let's continue it here for a bit.

Asherah is a major goddess, there are many hundreds of good sources. Anything worth saying in a general-knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia will be found multiple times in multiple sources (which is one way of deciding if something is a mainstream idea or not).

Also, I don't think the sources I deleted were actually being used. What I'm doing on the article is, first, cleaning up the references section to collect some useful sources, and then I'll go through all the refs and change to harvref format. While doing it I'll check on verifiability. It should lead to an improvement in the article (in fact I think there's a tag on it about sources already).

Have a look at what I've done on the Merneptah stele - I want to do the same thing with Asherah. PiCo (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Offline sources are acceptable so long as they are WP:RS. While what you say may be true regarding the abundance of online sources, it isn't reason to remove the sources. If you desire online sources, you can add additional sources to those facts that online WP:RS support. --LauraHale (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, I suggest you establish a local consensus at Asherah before reformatting to a non-standard layout. I would take exception to using the layout for references that you have adopted at Merneptah stele as 10/11 sources have used Google Books (books.google.com.au) for no particular reason, which in my eyes appears to promote Google Books unnecessarily. You have chosen to not include ISBN numbers, which is highly unfortunate, as on Wikipedia ISBN links are a rather good way of linking to a non-promotional and non-partisan page of on-line resources to find a catalogue with the book in it, which is a way of avoiding implicitly promoting Google. I have no problem with Harvard style, however the fullest possible citation is the norm when giving the source in an end-note even when you use the shorter Harvard form in a footnote.

I would also object to trimming of potentially useful alternative book sources, even if unused in the main article at the current time, unless the number of unused sources was excessive (indeed there have been many occasions in the past where I have trimmed tangential and excessive numbers of unused sources). There is no standard policy or guideline which insists that all sources must be used in the body of the article in order to be included. As you say, these are things to discuss on the article talk page, hopefully to reach a consensus before removing material or reformatting in a non-standard style. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Configuration Workgroup deleted page

hi,

can you give me some hand-holding re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Configuration_Workgroup or point me towards someone who might?

i'd like to provide whatever evidence is necessary to make this WP-worthy. it's a niche non-profit organisation, but very important in its niche (thousands of members, two international conferences a year, very active website ..)

thanks! Doceddi (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you ask for a copy to be userfied so you have a draft to improve (the deleting admin was Joe Decker, so ask him if he would userfy the article for you) . You will need to find independent sources to demonstrate notability in line with the requirements of Non-commercial organizations. Being large, of itself, is rarely a guide to notability, there must be wider social and/or historic impact to underpin a valid encyclopaedia article. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vinkovci Treasure

Hi Fae, I've expanded the article you started on the Vinkovci Treasure and am currently seeking to obtain some photos that we can use for the article. I think it would make a good DYK nomination, but I suggest leaving the nomination for a couple of days until the photos can (hopefully) be sorted out. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, thanks for pushing it forward, especially good use of non-English sources. --Fæ (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We've got permission now to use the same images that were in the BM blog, so I've added them and created a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Vinkovci Treasure. I've put you down for a credit as the creator of the article. Prioryman (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vinkovci Treasure

Hello! Your submission of Vinkovci Treasure at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Commons uploading issue

Hi Fae. Do you still have a copy of your original email from Matt Crockett in relation to the Commons discussion? Or can you remember which email account you used to send the message to OTRS - I am unable to find it through the two email accounts I am aware of. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not near my desktop until the middle of next week. However I believe your question about this Commons image from 2009 has already been answered. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Commons uploading issue

Hi Fae. Do you still have a copy of your original email from Matt Crockett in relation to the Commons discussion? Or can you remember which email account you used to send the message to OTRS - I am unable to find it through the two email accounts I am aware of. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not near my desktop until the middle of next week. However I believe your question about this Commons image from 2009 has already been answered. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found no evidence for the email, so are you saying that it was never sent? Please be as explicit as possible on this issue, as evasion at this point I will take as a yes that there was no email. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been given a OTRS number which I am now looking for. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have the email which supports what you say that you were given permission by the photographer to upload the image onto Commons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DYKbox protection

Why did you temporarily protect {{DYKbox}}? Your edit comment states high-risk but WP:HRT policy clearly states indefinite protection for high risk and never temporary.

WP:SEMI states:

Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes.

There has been no recent or heavy vandalism so, I request you either remove the protection or make it indefinite under high-risk guidelines. Thank you. 50.53.15.51 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)