User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Miltonist

A miltonist is not someone who studies John Milton, or I think you better provide RS to show that it does, which is hard to do for a redirect admittedly. That would be like saying an orwellist or a grayist or a I dunno shakespearist. I don't think you're right on this one but anyway blooody nice to see you, haven't seen you in a month of Sundays. Hope you and yours are all doing fine. I am just getting through stacks of nonsense Neelix redirects and occasionally make the wrong call but I don't think I have with this one. You obviously disagree, and that's fine. I relisted it over at WP:RfD but I am aware that I'm flooding that; the consensus at WP:ANI seems to be for me to carry on and I am getting through a few but if I ever make the wrong call quite right to reject the CSD. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:SimonTrew, I've been doing bits and pieces of editing and adminning recently, nothing like as much as 2009-10. On Miltonist, it's explicitly used in the title of an article to refer to a Milton scholar here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1094-348X.1976.tb00638.x/abstract. Also: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/february/martin-evans-obit-021513.html; http://news.yale.edu/2016/04/14/music-and-morality-mix-staged-reading-milton-s-comus; http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872026. It also seems to sometimes be used for followers of Milton's philosophical/political positions. I will add a note to Milton's legacy section to note the use of the term. You could've waited a little longer for a reply before nominating it! Fences&Windows 14:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's my fault I suffer from bipolar disorder or as it used to be called manic depression so when I am "up" it is good for Wikipedia I think that I can list stacks of em with some sense because it does make sense to me, but if in any doubt you are quite right to take it out. I will quite happily say withdrawn by nominator over at RfD as that seems entirely reasonable to me (unlikely to me but yep you have RS, it is a bit of a bugger to put in RS at a redirect isn't it) and I will quite happily withdraw that but please let me know if I forget, I don't think I listed it too early that is WP:BRD essentially. Glad you are doing fine. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well what can I say. I have withdrawn and asked for speedy keep at RfD. One of the most civil conversations of these Neelix redirects I have had in the last few days. It is a pleasure and an honour to know you if only on Wikipedia. I have a straw hat next to my desk here and I amm doffing it to you, thank you very much for your civility. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Si, Wikipedia must be quite a draw when you're up, there's so much to do. I don't think you're an idiot (your comment at RfD), I just take a different approach. I've seen a similar situation with another user recently on another process, where volume was starting to interfere with quality. It's easy to get sucked into being like Boxer and martyring yourself for the cause. Many of Neelix's redirects were ludicrous and I'm glad of the work you and others have done to clear out the Stygian stables - I've never been able to keep up such a high pace on Wikipedia as I spend too long researching things - but now that the weird sexual redirects are gone, there's not such urgency in clearing through the rest. Some are still pointless or odd, but a quick check on Google or Google Books can help differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. Fences&Windows 19:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem Fences. I just get it wrong sometimes and that is why admins and people at RfD have to make a judgment call. I do actually speedily keep and rcat some of the Neelix ones, it's the ones I have any doubt on that I list. Si Trew (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh when I said I am an idiot nobody accused me of being an idiot. I was accusing myself. I am not as you can see. Poor old Wikipedia, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for closing the Kennedy RM, and even for noting that my actions in anticipation of the close were "presumptuous". They were also intended to be a bit provocative. If you can suggest other ways to get things like this unstuck, I'd like to hear. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, it did serve to get my attention when they ended up as the oldest CSDs. I thought "oh, housekeeping, that looks easy"... it took a lot more reading than I was expecting (including the MOS talk page, RSs). "Presumptuous" was as strong as I needed to get, I kept my trout dry. Fences&Windows 23:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

F&W, are you up for closing some more silly unanimous Jr RMs?

• Talk:John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr._Memorial_Parkway#Requested_move_15_May_2016
• Talk:Samuel_Goldwyn,_Jr.#Requested_move_13_May_2016
• Talk:Roy_Simmons,_Jr.#Requested_move_13_May_2016

Dicklyon (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon , thanks for the note. When I looked onè had dissent. Let me know if they still need closing once a week is up and I can look again. Fences&Windows 12:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Three of these have gone a week without any problems, in case you want to close:

• Talk:Douglas_Fairbanks,_Jr.#Requested_move_13_May_2016
• Talk:Roy_Simmons,_Jr.#Requested_move_13_May_2016
• Talk:Samuel_Goldwyn,_Jr.#Requested_move_13_May_2016

This one has now migrated into the backlog: Talk:John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr._Memorial_Parkway#Requested_move_15_May_2016. It's the last open RM related to WP:JR, and got a little twist at the end. Take it on if you like. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for all that you do. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Torre de Cristal

The skyscraper in Madrid Torre de Cristal I think should have no disambiguation because of its relevance. And Torre de Cristal (Recife) is just a redirect, no main article. That's why. Triplecaña (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, makes sense. Done. Fences&Windows 23:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Athena Fund

I feel like I'm missing something. Why doesn't A7 apply? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Compassionate727, A7 only requires "credible claims of importance". This is a low standard, lower than notabilty. A scheme to provide every teacher in Israel with a laptop is definitely a credible claim to importance as that will affect the work life of thousands of teachers and hundreds of thousands of children if successful. Fences&Windows 23:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, okay. Thanks. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You sound skeptical, so I recommend re-reading Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters#A7 (please excuse the tongue-in-cheek title of the latter essay, I myself speedily delete pages.) Fences&Windows 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz (disambiguation)

Liz as a personal name is the primary topic; the few other entries should go to the dab page. So I need the deletion to create a name list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

HibClarityfiend, I don't think that is uncontroversial so I won't process that move. Why not create the name list and then start a requested move? Fences&Windows 01:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for reverting Roman Catholic Church in Mexico to its original designation. Amuseclio Amuseclio (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Anarchyte's talk page.
Message added 10:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Now with the confusion gone, can you please complete the move? Thanks. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

69.243.236.95

69.243.236.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing the unblock template to continue making attacks/troll. Feinoha ^Talk 22:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reblocked. Fences&Windows 22:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Football Club

I see you deleted Cambridge Football Club on 17 May 2016. Just letting you know that the article has been recreated. Schwede66 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Schwede! This time a copyvio... Fences&Windows 21:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp is NOT in use

Hi.

I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp with the following comment:

In use, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multiple_stable_software_releases/WhatsApp. Decline speedy

I am afraid you should look more closely at Special:WhatLinksHere. It says "WhatsApp ‎ (links | edit)" but there is no "(transclusion)" between "WhatsApp" and "(links | edit)". The reason is {{LSR}} which used in both Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp and Template:Latest stable software release/WhatsApp. Once you delete the Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp, {{LSR}} will safely change the target of its link.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I've deleted it now, but you should explain complications like that on the talk page when asking for speedy deletion. The template was in practice still in use, as when users clicked in the WhatsApp infobox that was where they ended up. Fences&Windows 10:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was fast

He's back, per the unmistakable pattern here, et al. Please block 174.29.179.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) accordingly, with my thanks. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

More, sorry

Okay, at the risk of pestering you (), using the tool and similar edits at around the same time I've found additional IPs that are unquestionably the same person; I'm including only those used within the past two months, though a few older ones also were prolific:

• 70.208.1.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.208.7.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.208.11.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.208.11.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.208.11.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.212.37.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.212.38.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.212.44.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 70.212.49.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)
• 174.29.75.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (proof)

I'm assuming, of course, that it's possible for this guy (no contemporary woman would ever write "she bore him [children]") to jump back to any of these IPs at any time. Whether you choose to block these immediately or just have us keep an eye on them is of course at your discretion. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked! ATinySliver, you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested if they can block "She bore him" and some of the other characteristic infobox edits. The targets seem to be connected by The Simpsons and/or voice acting.

We may also want to change any of the Pending changes on target articles to semi-protect, as PC doesn't deter them. Can you ask the admin(s) who placed PC about that?

They just jumped from Verizon to Qwest, so I am not sure a range block will do any good. They are unlikely to be reassigned the same IPs they used before. I have not calculated possible ranges or collateral damage of possible range blocks. Fences&Windows 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if blocking certain phrases will even do any good. "She bore him" is legitimate for mistresses and/or heirs; "causing death" or "leading to death" is a legitimate phrase except when added to death_cause, etc. Is there a tool that would allow me to watch for those specific phrases, then report the continuing pattern when I see it? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

ATinySliver, edit filters can tag as well as block edits. A Google alert for site:en.wikipedia.org "she bore him" might also work. Fences&Windows 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. (Edit: I've just set up a handful of Google alerts. Thanks again.) 🖖ATS / Talk 08:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please block 174.29.183.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). TIA. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• He's baaaaaaaaaack! (A month. A bloody month! ) 70.212.1.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) —ATS 🖖 Talk 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators Incidents Noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:WaterlooRoadFanWWE. Thank you. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

82.112.144.10

Please revoke user:82.112.144.10's ability to edit their talk page. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do it already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Chill out and stop edit warring. Fences&Windows 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AFD closing

Whoa there, I was participating in those Afds you closed. While I'm glad the Brigands gets to stay, the song article had a genuine discussion going on. Whether the AFD was a violation on the nominator who started it or not, it should not affect those who were making an actual point to merge the articles. It seems terribly unfair when there was clear consensus for a merger going on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheGracefulSlick, I realise there was a discussion and it would have been better had the interaction ban been raised sooner, but this was not a legitimate nomination. You may transpose the discussion to the talk page and open a merge discussion. Merge doesn't need a deletion debate. Fences&Windows 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. The timely was a little bad but that is not your fault. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with matter

Thank you for coming to my protection regarding the editor that was trying to harass me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hal Robson-Kanu

Hi, I reverted the edits largely due to the fact that the user stated that the match had finished and written it as a final result when in fact there was still over ten minutes to play. This clearly goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

He's ba-a-a-a-a-a-ack!

Please block 174.16.201.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). TIA. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I got frustrated. 🖖ATS / Talk 00:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ATS. I have blocked and explained why. Please don't let them get under your skin. You don't need to be confrontational, that may be partly what they are looking for. Fences&Windows 00:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know ... 🖖ATS / Talk 00:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

184.96.184.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and here we go again ... 🖖ATS / Talk 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominic Cummings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol

I presume you will have seen the comment on your talk page, but just in case I've posted here. Im getting tired of this. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully things are ok now. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I had actually missed this note, I was confused about where there was an accusation of sockpuppetry and so just ignored the issue! I don't keep much of an eye on my watchlist or user page, which is ironic as in this case I noticed the edits on Ancient Canaanite religion via my watchlist (I forget how it ended up on there). Fences&Windows 19:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm the opposite. I've got a lot of mainly fringe or ethnic articles on my watch list, many that have few active watchers, plus the stuff I have to watch as an Arb. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mary Hogg

Hi F&W, just sending you a brief message to commend you for your continuing work overseeing the editing of the page for Mary Hogg (including the redacting of an inappropriate edit summary). It's easy to understand why people currently have such strong feelings about recent events connected with the subject, and your calm diplomacy when engaging with other editors is a credit to all Wikipedians. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ~dom Kaos~, that was unexpected! Fences&Windows 12:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sam Mizrahi

Thank you so much for protecting the page for Sam Mizrahi. This page was created and modified a number of times after release of an article by Bloomberg and Financial Post last week about a lawsuit involving Sam Mizrahi. But since yesterday information started being deleted from the page even though the sections deleted had proper citation.

I did add a few pieces of information myself having reviewed the article published and researching Sam Mizrahi's business affairs online. When I realized that the information was being deleted I was forced to create an account to restore the page after it was vandalized again and again by a user named Trust one2010. I am pretty new to Wikipedia but I managed to figure out how to post a warning to that user to stop deleting the information. I guess they decided to do it as an IP user afterwards.

Would you be able to let me know how I should go about adding back in the sections that were actually edited by other users and were deleted by Trust One2010 and the IP user after wards? Thank you for your help and again thank you for putting an end to the silly restore and delete game.TorontoWhistleblower (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, TorontoWhistleblower. I have marked the article as having disputed neutrality. Please discuss this at Talk:Sam Mizrahi#Neutrality and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Mizrahi. Fences&Windows 10:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Iraj Zandi

Hi F&W. I appreciate your work and I recognize the need for it. Thanks for doing what you do.

You deleted text from the proposed page I entered for Dr. Zandi's page saying it had been copied from his University of Penn website page. That is correct, it was, but I do not think this violates any sort of copyright issue because Dr. Zandi himself wrote that page. Is there no exception for that case? Dr. Zandi is older. He expects that over time the information that he so carefully prepared for the U Penn website will be taken down and lost to posterity. Is there no way to move this information over to a much more permanent location? While somewhat less active in his later years, Dr. Zanid's work during the 1960 and 1970s was important in his field. Please advise. Also--I'm not sure this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you. If this is incorrect, please instruct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjayrush (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tjayrush, you're following all the right steps - thank you. Please follow the advice at WP:DONATETEXT. Once confirmation of permission is received, let me know (you can comment here or ping me in a comment elsewhere by putting my username in a comment and signing your comment - [[User:Fences and windows]] to put my username and ~~~~ to sign your comment. I can undelete the draft and work with you to get it into shape, then move it over the current article. Fences&Windows 21:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on Independence Day:Resurgence at AN/I

Just a chronological order for general understanding.

1. Omeganian edited NeoBatfreak's work without commenting on their ability to speak/write in English.

2. NeoBatfreak reverts his edit without an explanation.

3. Omeganian reverts the revert with the comment on their ability to speak/write in English.

I bring this up because Omeganian didn't immediately go after Neobatfreaks English until they reverted his excellent edit. The edit summary that is in question was part of a revert not the copy-edit. I doesn't matter too much but thought it worth addressing. Have a good day. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mr rnddude, that is a useful clarification to make. I will edit my statement to add "even under provocation". Fences&Windows 19:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Mr rnddude (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in need of an intelligent admin

So um... shit[1], I may have come across as an administrator here when I'm not. Any suggestion on what I should do; quietly just close the discussion, wait for an admin, have some hot cocoa and let the apocalypse commence. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It'll be alright, I slipped them a "I am involved, cannot perform closure" message and suggested they wait for additional opinions. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you are aware of this or not, thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude, there was no harm done as you suggested. I closed the report and asked the IP not to insult article subjects, but it's so mild I didn't strike the comment. Non-admins commenting at AN/I is useful as admins are stretched and many reports don't need admin action, so long as the comments are well considered and constructive.

You're off to a fine start as an editor, I was impressed by Battle of Antioch (218) (I gave it a quick proofread, hope you don't mind). Don't get sucked into AN/I too much to the detriment of article editing, it can skew your impression of how things work here! The Village Pumps are a good place to contribute to the backend without so much drama. Stick around with this attitude and article-expanding ability and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr rnddude should go blue in a few months more. You might get asked if you previously edited with another account or IP if you do get nominated, as you've been a quick learner. Fences&Windows 22:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, I don't mind AN/I personally just thought I'd overstepped the bounds a bit. I try to participate in several facets of the wiki and due to Uni hadn't payed much attention to article editing. I intend to hop back to it now that its the holidays and I have more free time. I have several articles lined up and in need of my attention. Oh, and my quick learning can be chalked up to having approximately 20 tabs open at any one time, 1 for an article, 2 for my general pages, 1 for AN/I, AfD or CSD and another 16 for various policies and rules. Ctrl-F is about as close a friend as you can have on wikipedia. Have a good day. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI report (about me)

Thanks for closing it, I felt that the points had all been covered well, and while I might not agree every single point, made by every single editor, I certainly paid attention to everything said, and think your closing summary summed things up well and gave me a very good idea of how I can and should improve things, without it detracting from my ability to edit articles and communicate with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy420, I think you should be fine. Fences&Windows 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

198.49.31.131

Revoke talk page access for user:198.49.31.131. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3636:3BFF:FE89:DA50 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, they've had their chance. What weird edits. Fences&Windows 18:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Readding tweet, message on my page

I'm not sure what the correct way to reply is but if I readded that it was by mistake. I was only meaning to add a single reference, but I must have accidentally readded that as well. My apologies. Jokullmusic 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks User:Jokullmusic. It has now been referenced to http://www.dhakatribune.com/2016/jul/01/hostage-situation-holey-artisan-bakery-gulshan, which was offline when I tried to access it earlier to check if it might verify that figure. Fences&Windows 20:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh's name and origin

Thanks for your input on the Yahweh talk page. I didn't even notice there was a discussion at the time. The sources you gave are most valuable, and I've tried to work the information in to the article. You might like to have a look.PiCo (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, I wasn't sure how to work it in. I will see if there is anything more to add, e.g. about the Edomite god. Fences&Windows 21:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

RyanSunshine still causing trouble

Hi, I'm writing to you because I see that you are the one who blocked RyanSunshine. It looks like he continues using his IP: 98.237.123.85. Just as before, the user never responds to user talk messages, never uses edit summary, and of course doesn't discuss on article talk page. Could you please help? The last time I reported an editor, I was told to discuss it with them, but there can't be a discussion without both people discussing. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Musdan77, I blocked for six months. Report future socks at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wattsj528 and give behavioural evidence, please. Fences&Windows 22:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:United States military veterans from Indiana etc Hugo999 (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons Images / Uploader

FYI - I deleted the 2 images as Speedy:G3, and User:jcb has blocked him indef Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Fences&Windows 05:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion of review on talk page of article not up-to-date

Could you help me with a matter? The transclusion of the review for the article the Wrecking Crew is not up-to-date and I cannot get it to reflect my latest changes that I made at the real review (no matter how may times I try to re-edit it). Would it be possible to update the talk page trasclusison of the review to coincide with my latest revisions to the actual review? It is important that my words convey my thoughts regarding the matters discussed in the review, and I don't think that my initial response adequately conveyed my thoughts, particularly in light of the fact that I have gone the extra mile since then to further satisfy the reviewer's recommendations. The reviewer seems to be taking a break or absence from the review and, in order to make it clear that I am trying to rectify all of his issues, I want to have the most up-to-date trasclusion possible to best-represent where I'm at right now in the process. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Garagepunk66, I tried clearing the cache on the talk page. I think that fixed it. Fences&Windows 17:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your help. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlotte Spencer (actress), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC (TV), George Mackay and Les Misérables (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A WikiKitten Says Hello!

Hi there, Fences and Windows. My name's Rachel - I wanted to reach out to you because I am planning on creating a page/editing some content related to a page that you once edited some years ago - Interactive storytelling - for the purposes of an Online Communities class for my fall semester. (The new page will probably be titled Interactive drama.) I wanted to introduce myself in case we run into each other in the mainspace for that reason, and to ask for some general guidance with my first few edits, if you were able to spare the time and expertise. Looking forward to getting to know some experienced wikipedians! - Rroberie (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rroberie, thanks for your note. It's been a long time since I edited in this area, but I may be able to advise. There's several articles in this field, including the umbrella one of Interactive art. When you write Interactive drama, focus on finding high-quality sources to work from. Add a summary to the Interactive art page when you're done. Also, write about one concept - if several different things are referred to as "interactive drama" they may need covering in different articles, maybe including some existing ones like Interactive video, with disambiguation to help readers navigate. Fences&Windows 10:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Rroberie, get some practice editing or expanding existing related articles before you try starting a new one. I edited for a few years before I started my first article, though you don't need to wait so long. Start a new article in your userspace, e.g. User:Rroberie/Interactive drama, to draft without other editors jumping on it too early. Also ask WikiProjects for help, e.g. WP:WikiProject Arts, WP:WikiProject Theatre. Fences&Windows 10:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Previous Michael Shrimpton articles

Hello, Fences and windows. Thanks for your note at Talk:Michael Shrimpton pointing me towards an archive of the previous version of the article. Were you involved in editing or deleting that version, or any of the other versions that were created under different names? If so, perhaps you could shed more light on the discussion at Talk:Michael Shrimpton#previously deleted as an attack page. Apart from what I've gleaned from comments in the associated deletion discussions, I have no idea who created or edited all these pages. Am I correct that at least two of them were autobiographies? (Note that Shrimpton appears to be contributing to the present article not only under his registered account but also using unregistered IP accounts; the same may have held for some or all three of the previous articles.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Psychonaut, I didn't write or edit any version, other than to change a category. In 2008, the "terror expert" version was written by User:Jay Fields, it was speedily deleted as an attack page. It deserved to be deleted, it wasn't based in reliable sources and included original research and opinion. The userpage version was an autobio, deleted as a resume. A very similar bio is here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/. Shrimpton is making allegations of the current version being an attack - it may need discussing at BLP/N and/or AN/I, and needs cutting down to what is available in high-quality independent secondary sources. A restriction to avoid Shrimpton directly editing would also be wise. Fences&Windows 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. It appears Shrimpton already posted about the current version of the page at WP:BLP/N some time ago (though I wasn't notified and therefore missed it) and as a result, material from some sources judged to be unreliable was removed. The rest of the material seemed to be acceptable to everyone other than Shrimpton. I see that he's now using the article to post unreferenced arguments against his convictions, and as a soapbox for promoting his own conspiracy theories (for which he was blocked back in 2007). He's been unresponsive to all talk and project page discussions (including the ones he started himself) so I'll raise the issue at WP:ANI. I'll drop you a line once I've done so in case you want to comment further there. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, done – see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Michael Shrimpton. Having reviewed his past behaviour, I've suggested a block rather than a restriction on editing the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Psychonaut, that escalated quickly. "Give em enough rope". Fences&Windows 18:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fences and windows. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Simon article

Hi Fences and Windows! Thank you for your support for the article I started for Cathy Simon, and for the additional sources you found about her. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia editing, and have never had an article I wrote be "nominated for deletion", so at first I was worried, but now I feel encouraged to continue working on this article and to "make my case" for it. ~~rscooli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.182.226 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem rscooli, I stumbled on the bio and thought she seemed notable (I've been to the Ferry Building, and remembered the renovation was a big thing) and started looking for sources. They're harder to find for an architect than a celebrity, but the amounts of coverage and recognition makes it clear the entry should be kept. Fences&Windows 07:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

please place this in my sandbox

A few weeks ago, I saw Malia Obama (celebrity). It was a normal article, a bit short because it was new. But not an attack piece by any stretch of imagination. You deleted it. Please let me see it. I think it is very credible an article that can grow.

Afghandeaths (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Afghandeaths, I did not delete that article. If you check the deletion log, I deleted the restored redirect - as it was not a term that would plausibly be used to find information on Malia Obama.

The article was deleted by Writ Keeper as an attack page, following this discussion. It contained this text, "Obama's father asks that there not be press coverage of his daughter, provoking a Wikipedia response to comply with the government orders, even when Wikipedia notability guideines are followed and no law has been passed", which illustrates an agenda. The sources were mainly tabloids and the writing was poor. I will not restore such an article, even to userspace. Malia Obama is already covered at Family of Barack Obama: the talk page of that article is where to discuss the merits of a split to turn Malia Obama from a redirect into a full article.

You complained to ArbCom members before you discussed this with me, not the usual practice for challenging an admin action. This was after a three-year break in editing, showing more than a passing interest in this article. Do you have any association with BBBH, who Bishonen blocked?

p.s. Regarding your userpage note, you can change username at Wikipedia:Changing username. Fences&Windows 08:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have made a CU inquiry. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

For the record: I admit it was borderline as a G10. I posted my reasoning for deletion on the talk page of the redirect (now deleted correctly by F&W) that acknowledged that:

This is pretty borderline as a G10, IMO; it's not really very negative (not enough for me to call it an attack page, and more negative about Barack than Malia really), and it does have sources. But I see where you're coming from, particularly in that navel-gazing paragraph about Wikipedia[the same passage quoted above by F&W], and I'll err on the side of caution, since it's a BLP. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The point is more that that line made the ulterior motive for creating the article obvious, and that given the article's status as a BLP, I was going to err on the side of caution and delete it, since it was clearly not intended to be just another article. While I do personally wish the subjects (or in this case, their close family) had some say in the deletion of their articles, I don't think deletion-on-request should be an absolute right, especially in the case of clearly notable people, and it's not part of the deletion policy as it stands today anyway. The request to have no article did not influence my deletion decision at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Writ Keeper. Fences&Windows 18:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fences and windows.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fences and windows. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and Request regarding Willie Taggart article

Thanks for protecting this article, I've tried to revert the premature revisions but it was a constant battle. I would like to request that you consider reverting to a previous edit as he has not yet officially or unofficially been declared the coach of the University of Oregon and thus the article is currently not accurate. Thanks. krizoitz(talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I picked the m:The Wrong Version to protect. Fences&Windows 17:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi krizoitz, looking at the source of this news, ESPN and AP seem to have both spoken to a source and even someone speaking on Taggart's behalf: [2][3]. Everyone else is cribbing from them. While waiting for the official statement, those sources will do I'd have thought. It's more than a rumour and not something negative (like a crime or death). Fences&Windows 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Thank you for your nomination! I have added my acceptance and answered the questions. Please transclude the nomination if you think it is OK. PS: I think one "your" still needs changing to "their". --Boson (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You just proved your copyediting ability ;). We are go. Fences&Windows 20:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for nominating Boson. Risker (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Risker. If the biggest issues with Boson are having a userbox and "not needing the tools", their admin tenure should be fine. Fences&Windows 11:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:PACT

Hi, it seems to me some people are linking to this essay (of which you are the primary author) as if it's some kind of get out of jail free card when they're called out for displays of bad faith towards other editors. Perhaps it needs some editing to clearly explain that this is not the purpose of the essay, and that rather than linking to the essay people who are perceived to be violating wikipedia's behavioral guidelines re AGF should instead reconsider their approach? Really, the only time it is appropriate to link to the essay is when discussing clear cut vandalism, trolling etc. Trying to excuse one's behaviour by linking to that essay constitutes a personal attack in my opinion. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi MaxBrowne, you're right. The intent of the essay was to record the origin of a common phrase on Wikipedia and to point out that problem users wikilawyering shouldn't get in the way of admins dealing with a problem. I don't know the context of the uses you mention (diffs would help), but a tweak to note this is not a pass to yourself act poorly could be useful. Fences&Windows 08:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer not to snitch to be honest... I'll give you this diff on the understanding that I neither request nor desire any action or involvement by you in this particular dispute. It's purely an example of abuse of your essay. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That was helpful, MaxBrowne, I won't intervene in that dispute. How is this? One word of advice - try not to get riled when editing and debating. Fences&Windows 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Schwede66#Neutral.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20