User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 9

Articles for deletion/List of persons who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards

Superb work on your reasons for Keep. I voted because of the lack of objections, but your case is much more compelling, and a source for inproving the article. MMetro (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you close this as speedy keep since there are no objections? I'll remove the tags if you are willing to do the honors. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Fancy closing this? Fences&Windows 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely, if I could. I'll go about removing them now for that and the other one. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, but I fixed it. I was actually watching something on television that warrents an article here. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you can close such AfDs, see Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Fences&Windows 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vir Singh

Thank you for your assistance. I will absolutely look into how to correctly move pages; indeed, my knowledge in wikipedia is currently lacking. In the meantime, I thank you profusely for your touching up and fixing my edits! Happy new year to you Virsingh (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rap Cat

Thanks. Wasn't the Rap Cat article sourced only to YouTube though? Good work on digging up the sources. I added one to the article, but the article still needs major work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hello Fences and Windows! I just got a bot for archiving, how about that! Speaking of that, you should probably archive soon. Oh, I just customized my new signature! Cheers to a new year!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I forgot to archive at the end of November. Glad you're enjoying yourself. Fences&Windows 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Record Charts

These two articles (Turkish Top 20 Chart and Türkiye Top 20) are not the same. --joseph ^msg 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind providing some references to show that this second chart (1) exists (2) is notable? Fences&Windows 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is the main chart. Nielsen tracks airplays in Turkey. There are three charts derived from this chart, by "Billboard Türkiye". These charts are: "Turkish Top 20", "Turkey Top 20" and "Turkish Rock Top 20". These charts lists: Turkish language songs only, Non-Turkish songs only, and Turkish language rock songs only, respectivley. Billboard used to publish these lists from their website. But they are not publishing anymore from their website. The list here is almost the same with the main charts issued by Nielsen, because Turkey mostly listens to Turkish language songs. And for the "number 1 songs", it was always the same. I write a little explanations here as well. --joseph ^msg 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• You're asserting these thing: please give sources. Your explanations are not verified Fences&Windows 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• What do you want to know exactly? The current number one for Nielsen can be found here. Nielsen doesn't provide history for the charts. You can try some archive.org searches ([1], [2], [3], [4]) for previous number ones. Or, do you want to know Nielsen's officiality? --joseph ^msg 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see secondary sources (probably in Turkish) that refer to these charts, discuss them, and verify what you're saying about them. Adding the links to the Internet Archive to the articles would be a start for verifying the content, but we can't write articles entirely using primary sources. Fences&Windows 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WossOccuring

I was wondering why this editor was so confrontational when I questioned his AFD nominations. Good job catching that a/c as a sock.

I'd keep an eye on this new editor on the Lady Gaga talk page: [5]

--Madchester (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd already come across them socking under other accounts, so I spotted the pattern. Not sure that newbie is the same, different style and different editing times. Keep an eye out though! Fences&Windows 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Sex toy parties

I've restored this valuable contribution to global knowledge removed spam and WP:OR and added to my watchlist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Valuable and notable are not one and the same! I'll add some sources. Fences&Windows 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NAEA

I would agree if notability was the only concern, but the article was also promotional, could have been deleted as spam, and an obvious cut and paste, suggesting that it was probably a copyright infringement too - they haven't even bothered to change "national" etc in the text to "US". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd have been good if you'd given an explanation of this when deleting, and if you'd responded to the other query about this deletion. I'll work on a replacement. Fences&Windows 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Edward L. Johnson

I admit that "obituary" was probably not an ideal description. This was an unsourced cut and paste again, no attempt at neutrality, and looked as if taken from an obituary. It's full of unsupported hagiography. Look at the first sentence. Edward L. Johnson was an outstanding and in-demand tenor who sang on opera stages across North America, including Carnegie Hall. He was the youngest person ever to sign on with the Metropolitan Opera in NYC, and sang along side such operatic greats as Jussi Björling and Beverly Sills. Just as his career as an opera singer was really hitting its stride, the love of his life, his first wife, passed away from Hodgkin's disease. By all indications, had he stayed in New York, he would have been among the world's top tenors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was deletable under A7, why not state that explicitly? It might be deletable under A7, or maybe not - does it give a credible claim to notability? After looking for sources I agree he's not notable, but stretching the use of speedy deletion isn't a good idea. Fences&Windows 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Early human migrations

A number of linguists are of the opinion that the first long-distance human migrations within and from Africa took place when the development of language reached the stage where journeys could be planned. This made the geographical distribution of humans very different from that of plants and animals, which was largely dictated by favourable or hostile environmental conditions. There obviously can be no certainty about that, which is why I used the word "probably" Androstachys (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"A number of linguists". Who? "Probably" is weasel wording. You have references to support this? If so please provide them! Fences&Windows 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Annalee Newitz

Sure, if you want to. I have no problem with categories, only ones without supporting article text. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I also began a stub at Contract Disputes Act of 1978, and would be in your debt if you would evaluate this. Clerk at work (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure that this should not just go at Contract Disputes Act, which I redirected there, since I know no other Act under said tile. Clerk at work (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Either title is fine, it's known as both it seems. The important thing to do with this stub is to find sources; I'll take a look but law isn't my area. The formatting is fine. Fences&Windows 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you. Clerk at work (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Pseudoarchaeology

Point taken, you are right, people may get the wrong idea that these subjects are pseudoarchaeology, not just misused by pseudoarchaeologist. If you find any tags that are inappropriate its cool if you remove them. Jmm6f488 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I only saw a couple that seemed out of place. Fences&Windows 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU - 2010s article

Thank you for your contribution. That article page is basically one giant unsourced article. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

That's very flattering and I am honored that you think so. However, it is not something that I aspire to. Thanks all the same! --Crusio (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A reluctance to become an admin is an eminent qualification for being one. If you ever think it might be useful for you to have the mop, let me know. Fences&Windows 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalejenkins#Report_date_January_6_2010.2C_19:50_.28UTC.29

As you were involved in an earlier related report, the above discussion may be of relevance to you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible, but not his style exactly. Fences&Windows 21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Inre Ice Queen (film)

Screenwriter David R. Williams, apparently aggrieved about what his original story became, wrote a piece on Amazon [6] detailing how his original storyline had been changed and modified based upon pressure from project investors. What might be the best way to incorporate this in a pre-production or development section for the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. Are Amazon profiles certified in any way? It could be used as a self-published source if it can be shown that this user is indeed the writer. Fences&Windows 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See "Amazon Help: Your Real Name™ Attribution" http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279641 I saw that movie... :-D Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's the man himself. Fine to use as a SPS. Fences&Windows 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, the meatpuppets weren't kidding, there's a "BRING BACK THE ICE QUEEN WIKIPEDIA PAGE!!!" on Facebook with 14 fans so far. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Joy. Much as I approve of some Facebook campaigns, Facebook does have a lot to answer for. Fences&Windows 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, just now I found six FB groups devoted to various WP pages which have gone through AfDs, prods, or SDs. Seems kind of silly of them to out themselves, but I guess that's part of the "fun"? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).Borock (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Fences&Windows 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

notability (events) needs work

The new guideline needs work and has conflicting information. Thanks for pointing out that all 5 criteria need to be filled (like duration, depth...)

Look here

Diversity of sources: "An event that receives coverage in a wide variety of sources is likely to be notable."

But then you highlighted it has to be all 5.

If it is all five then it should read "Diversity of sources: An event that receives coverage in a wide variety of sources is likely to fill this one criteria but also has to meet the other 4"

Or instead of "In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article:" it should read "In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event should strongly meet the majority of the following criteria or 3 criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article:" (strongly meet meaning not just barely). There are a number of non-tabloid news articles that clearly meet 3 but don't clearly meet all 5. If we unevenly enforce the guideline, that just creates drama and uncertainty. The best way is to have the guidelines reflect actual Wikipedia practice and maybe tighten it a little. To have a huge disconnect is not good. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A lack of depth of coverage, a lack of variety of coverage, or a lack of geographical spread of coverage will usually rule out an article on an event. If an event is only mentioned in passing, only mentioned in one newspaper, or only mentioned in the local press, it'll likely not survive AfD. A lack of persistence of coverage and a lack of a lasting effect are often hard to judge soon after an event, but they're still valid criteria. An article about an event only covered in the immediate aftermath or an event that didn't have any demonstrable impact (a flash-in-the-pan) is also likely to get deleted if re-examined later on. The principles of the guideline are mostly fine, even if some of the wording needs tweaking: for instance, the wording on diversity should really be: "An event that does not receive coverage in a variety of sources is not likely to be notable". The only principle I wonder about is having a lasting effect, as this is a criterion that unlike the other criteria strays from judging the coverage. I wonder if the criterion on a lasting effect can be rolled into PERSISTENCE, so an event that either has persistent coverage or has a lasting effect meets the new combined criterion. Fences&Windows 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's some murder rape that so shocked a city that 25 years later, there is still dedicated news stories about it. That is persistence. I forgot the name of the victim but there was an AFD where it failed and was deleted. What was lacking was geographical scope (but it probably would if it happened after the internet took hold) and questionably depth of coverage (not 60 minutes but at least regional coverage). Yet internet tabloid news survive AFDs. So by being a little less stringent than the written guideline, somewhat reflecting the current Wikipedia practice, but being a little more stringent than the current handling of articles, we might achieve what you seek. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See the notability events talk page. The changes you made were major changes. Before it said (paraphrasing) - meet all 5 criteria, criteria 1 (if met, is likely to be notable). This is a conflict. This needs discussion because 2 alternatives are: meet all 5 criteria, criteria 1 (if unmet, is not notable), which is what you changed it to. The 2nd alternative is: should meet most of the criteria, criteria 1 (if met, is likely to be notable). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the AfD example you mentioned in your contributions, you must not have !voted on it. The summaries were wrong for the meaning of the guideline, and this had slipped past in the process of writing it. It was never intended to mean that an event meeting any one of the criteria to be considered to be notable. Fences&Windows 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the changes you make are significant enough that they must be approved. You shouldn't change it so fast on your own. The way it was written a few hours ago, if one event had persistent coverage, say decades later, it would be notable. However, with your change it is not notable. Such potentially huge shift should be adequately discussed before change. Such change may come about, more likely than not, but guidelines should be discussed. As such, I am changing it back and opening it up for discussion. Don't feel this is an attack on you. When the discrepancy is solidified, AFDs might be decided on with greater certainty and less conflict. As far as that other AFD, I don't even remember the name and didn't vote on it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you review my rationale?

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is about as close as I can come to arguing my case perfectly according to policy. Please read my comments on AFD and see if you disagree.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability considerations

Again, please don't think I am arguing with you. We 3 people are almost in agreement and recognize the problems with tabloid style articles. Some careful work now will benefit the entire project.

The Wordsmith (different from User:Wordsmith) is suggesting that lasting effect can be a sole criteria for notability. It's not clearly said so but should be. Your lumping it together with another criteria may erase this distinction.

Most cases with lasting effects will almost certainly meet many of the other criteria but may not meet all of the. However, lasting effects is almost the same thing as historical events and historical events are very encyclopedic. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rising to the bait a bit much today. "Wordsmith" was shorthand for his name, but I didn't know there was another user by that name! I shall be careful. I'd say I disagree that EFFECT alone shows notability, as it's too subjective - as I said, it's the only criterion not based on sources. Lumping it in with PERSISTENCE would solve two issues: 1. Many articles about events will meet the other four criteria but have no lasting effect, but we're unlikely to delete those articles. 2. An event with a demonstrable lasting effect that also passes GEOSCOPE, DIVERSITY and INDEPTH could be seen as being immediately notable, without the need for waiting to see if coverage is persistent. I could live with The Wordsmith's position, but I'd rather go with my suggestion. We're definitely going to need to thrash this out, and it might be worth advertising it at WT:N to get more input. Fences&Windows 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please hold off

Please hold off on your changes to the notability guideline. See that talk page for why. It's the A and B explanation. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk)

If A and B conflict, you want to change B to conform with A. However, A may have to conform with B.

Note my discussion that lack of international coverage can shoot down event notability even if all other criteria are strongly met. There should be allowance that if the majority of the criteria are strongly met, the event is notable. None of the tabloid news strongly meets the majority of the criteria so that shouldn't be a worry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop badgering me about this, I did not make the change. Please keep discussion on the guideline talk page from now on. Fences&Windows 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you think that I am badgering you.  :( I thought I was giving you the honor of being a VIP and giving you more attention. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Walls and Mirrors Barnstar
		Specially named after and awarded to Fences and Windows for willingness to engage in discussion about policies and/or guidelines Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! If I wasn't willing to discuss things you would be quite justified in trout-slapping me. I'm in a brusque mood these last couple of days, thanks for maintaining a sense of humour. Fences&Windows 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

hi, ... how do i know ? answer is simple, if u check my profile i live and drive in pakistan, you can see a pic of any pakistani vehicle it will show u a right hand drive. Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion between 'driving (the car) on the right (of the road)' and 'driving (whilst sitting) on the right (-hand side of the car)'.   pablo_hablo. 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

hi, i think you would like to see this.... [7]... may be drives feel it easy to drive on the side where they sit, at least in pakistan.

Regards

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that shows drivers in right-hand drive cars driving on the left-hand side of the road.   pablo_hablo. 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually its right hand with respect to the direction they are going. Any ways i got it, officially its left hand drive in pakistan, (just saw the highway authority website) but due to widely unknown reasons people drive on which ever side they desire.... bad traffic rules in here.

Thanks for correction any ways. Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They drive on the left of the road, but on the right of the car (right-hand drive). I did read about a problem with people overtaking on the left too (known as undertaking). Sounds almost as bad as driving in Italy. I have added a reference. Fences&Windows 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The left of the road is the theory anyway... see e.g. Footprint Pakistan Handbook: The Travel Guide by Dave Winter p. 44 (searchable on Amazon) for some commentary on that, night driving and turn signal use (e.g. left turn signal may mean "I'm turning left" or "you can pass me on the left"!). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added a quote to Right- and left-hand traffic#Pakistan to the effect that drivers mostly drive as they please. Fences&Windows 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1981 Southall riot

Feel free to add more referenced information to the paragraph about the 1981 Hamborough Tavern incident in the Southall article. However, keep in mind that the Oi! concert was not a neo-Nazi event. None of the bands playing there were white power bands, and the audience members included all kinds of Oi! fans, not just white power skinheads.Spylab (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It wasn't a 'Neo-Nazi event', it was an Oi! gig that was attended by Neo-Nazis. I'll work those other sources in. Fences&Windows 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An open proposal for a WikiProject Talk Pages

I noticed you were involved in a past proposal for a WikiProject that dealt with talk pages, and I wanted to let you know that a similar proposal is now open. If you would support such a project, I would appreciate your vote.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aladna

Can you take a look at this? With so many fake references and not a single Ghit outside of WP, I can't think why this isn't a hoax, but since it was CSD declined, I'd like to make sure that it is one before I take it to AfD (I came across this from Taakatism, a hoax religion). And given that there's a comment that someone in the UK owns a couple (on the talk page), figured you might know if that's a reasonable claim or not. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else beat me to taking it to AfD. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

you know,

I wish you could have asked me what I was doing instead of labeling me as doing whatever you thought I was doing. The only box I could find says "spam." I'm not a professional here, and I do it all pretty much by guesswork. I don't have a word processor on my computer. In fact, I know very little about computers and the internet and how this all works here, but I discovered I liked the wiki page creation, and so I practiced while screwing around and taking notes and doing my own thing without realizing I was in violation of Wikipedia rules in doing so. I was attempting to use my userspace as a personal wiki. I only figured that out today. Everybody was calling me webhost and blogger and all this crap that I felt had nothing to do with me, for I believe the goals of those things are networking or something mainly for the benefit of others and in hopes that others will come to see the blogs or whatever. I did my personal wiki for my own benefit while still being welcoming to anyone who might have stopped by. I realize you did tell me beforehand of your intent to nominate the page, although your statement of "If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume.." convinced me you were way off target on what I was trying to do, so I ignored you. I wish we could have actually discussed it.

I know through my ISP I do have access to storage space, so it sounds like I could set up my own personal wiki there, and that would be ideal. I don't require that my personal notes and garbage be kept on Wikipedia. I just didn't know of another way and I didn't think I was doing anything wrong. Nobody ever pointed out the "no personal wiki" part of the rule WP:NOTWEBHOST that was so often pointed out to me. I didn't even know what a 'wiki' or a 'personal wiki' was until I discovered that and looked it up today.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, Fences. I assumed you were a scientist who personally disagreed with what I had written there, which was an unwarranted assumption on my part, and I apologize. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't require that my personal notes be kept on Wikipedia, I just don't know of another way" -- try a text document or word document. Notepad, OpenOffice, and Microsoft Word all work fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I bit the newbie, sorry. I will attempt to explain myself better in future. For free web hosting, you could try Googlesites: http://sites.google.com. For a free wiki, you could try Wikispaces (http://www.wikispaces.com/), Wikidot (http://www.wikidot.com), Idea Wiki (http://ideas.wikia.com/), and there are more suggestions at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Fences&Windows 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks a whole lot. I got a big-screen Mac a year or so ago, whose capabilities are far beyond my meager skills. My biggest problem (never mind the price): They don't even come with ClarisWorks anymore(!). Even with all the advancement, how much improvement is there ever really? --Neptunerover (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Help

Hello F&W, I was wondering if you could help me improve this article in your spare time.--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Leave me a talkback!

Thanks for the words. Did you read the PS? You didn't know how many times I had to ask FC!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't use talkbacks, I don't like them. I rolled back my comment on your talk page, the format was out of whack. Fences&Windows 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, no reason to get into details there.--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Why cant I create the page Xavier March. I don't find reading the Fatherland page covers him in enough detail. What if there is a school child who has to do an assignment on March but finds that the information given on the Fatherlnad page is not enough? Besides Fagin is covered on the Oliver Twist page yet Fagin also has his own page. Wikipedia is about expanding peoples knowledge, so why not let me create the Xavier March page? Anybody is entitled to write anything as long as it is enhancing peoples knowledge.

Yours Sincerely MJDietrich

Replied on your talk. Fences&Windows 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD Renato M.E. Sabbatini

I'm asking everyone to take another look at [8] based on recent changes to the article. Upsala (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Would you be willing to get involved here? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been peripherally involved at one AfD and I've been vaguely watching the development of this dispute. I will take a closer look at it again, but I don't consider myself uninvolved as I'm already pretty sure which party is causing the disruption... Fences&Windows 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll send over the e-mails which explain most of the request. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sent. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I'll reply tomorrow. Fences&Windows 02:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a new round of drama if your interested. I was wondering if you knew anyone who could speed this SPI closure up as it is starting to be dragged through the mud as I write this. Oddly when one sends me an e-mail, I get a counter, as if someone is viewing who is sending out e-mails and alerting the other. Thanks again for caring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. They may be emailing each other, or perhaps there is a 'double agent'? Considering the legal action taken over the A4M article and the Simon Singh case, I think getting ArbCom involved might be the next step. Fences&Windows 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to do the honors since I have never even contacted ArbCom before? I'm also going to e-mail you what I just got. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering this thread, a community ban is probably going to occur pdq, so ArbCom might not get a look in, though I imagine Dr Press will appeal to ArbCom (or launch legal action). I have never gone to ArbCom's door myself. Fences&Windows 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that will work. Is Bull on the right side of things here do you think? Can we also contact a Checkuser and put this thing out of its misery, as I don't want to keep getting mudslinging e-mails anymore if their just reitterating the same thing. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drsjpdc has been clerk endorsed, so I see no reason why a checkuser shouldn't assess the case. As for POV-pushing, Dr Press is certainly trying to promote chiropracty and his involvement in it, but Brangifer's seems to me to be overzealous. Being a 'skeptic' is quite a crusade for some. Fences&Windows 21:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that he is resigned to his fate and I've sent him an e-mail detailing what he could do once he is blocked. We shall see what else unfolds now. Thanks again for the help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

knitting and crochet during the civil war...

hi,

i know where you think with your ideals of deleting my post. but you fail to realize that i am not talking about women during this time period. i am talking about both men and woman and even the soldiers themselves. i made this for the full purpose of educating others and i have even found some sources to go with it, and all the rest of the 6.5 billion people in this world can also help make it better, but you think of that not. this is for education only and can only be included in the knitting history forum, and not one that secludes women from men who are knitters. Iceveela (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources you are using are not suitable. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I've provided you with two reliable sources, but you've not made use of them. Try looking on Google News, Books and Scholar for more sources, blogs are not OK, and a trip to the library might be in order. It's not about 'ideals', it's about the fact that the topic of your article does not stand alone. I already pointed you to History of knitting and other areas related to your topic. Also note that your standard of writing is below that needed to effectively edit Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a school jotter. See WP:COMPETENCE. Fences&Windows 17:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cookie mania

Micro101 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ANI

I reverted a huge chunk of deletion from the ANI page on the assumption it was vandalism. Did I do right or wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently that mass deletion was a mistake and it's just as well I reverted it immediately, else things might have got complicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well spotted and dealt with. For some reason when I tried to view the diff my browser crashed, which is why I didn't respond! Fences&Windows 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Patrolling

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ash and Ethel Page

The Ash and Ethel page was an invaluable resource for me, and I would presume for others as well. It taught me, among other things, that the ash cannot just be used in any ol' word possessing an 'a' and an 'e' next to one another. It also taught me that some words with ashes or ethels are obsolete while others are just extremely uncommon. Finally, it taught me about the evolution of the English language involving words employing the ash or the ethel.

It appears that the only reason it was deleted was that the title improperly referred to the letters as ligatures. Recognising that it would be a shame to allow such a valuable resource to disappear from the Internet, I opted to salvage the page.

Before salvaging it, I checked the discussion page, and found that although people were suggesting a name-change (on the grounds that the ash and ethel are not technically ligatures like fl and fi), nobody was suggesting an elimination of the article. I can only assume then that it was the general consensus that the article was valid and useful, notwithstanding the error in title.

My aim was two-fold: restore the article and fix the error I did this in the only way I knew how.

In no way was it my intention to violate wikipedia protocal, and if you know of a way to fix the standing protocal problems concerning the article, I (and I'm sure many other wikipedia users) would certainly appreciate it.

Best regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Proceed with the deletion.

Yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Grichard56 & Marco Polo (game)

Wow, what an edit history for a short article :-o) I see your frustration with the problem there, maybe going over to Wikipedia:General sanctions and asking for a ruling? It does feel like using a nuclear bomb on a flea though :) Maybe with another independent warning he'll get the message?? <general frustration sigh> Skier Dude (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection from vandalism

Hello. We have an anon user reverting multiple edits not by undo but by pasting the older version by calling it "the proper version". This is going on with the article on Jiddu Krishnamurti. User is vandalising from 65.88.88.126 which happens to be the New York Public Library. User has been warned many times but is disdainful probably due to the protection offered by the library terminals. This user needs to be blocked immediately or the article pages need to be protected from repeated vandalism. Thanks in advance for your attention. Bo.talks (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Article protection is long overdue. I have repeatedly offered to the anon user that he is more than welcome to correct any genuine/factual errors one by one with explanations. In case he did not browse the discussion page, I made it a point to mention it as comments in my edits. I will certainly not be doing any blanket reverts, nor do I have an outdated 'proper version' to revert. All my edits (barring undos of the anon users blanket reverts on 1/17) have been individual with valid sources and explanations. Any deletions of other contributors are accidental and I have no problem to see them reinserted. Bo.talks (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is not true. It is my impression that there is one user or perhaps two users with different aliases attempting to manipulate the article. 65.88.88.126 has been working on the article for a long time and is making very good edits. Another anon user beginning with 120....and with a theosophical POV was making poor edits and reversions without explaining them and now appears to have taken the name Bo.talks. Sach.b (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in who is right or who is wrong on the content. The page is locked, so thrash out the content dispute on the talk page. Fences&Windows 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Bo.talks is not interested in "right or wrong content either." He had no consensus for his edits. Please read the long comment on the discussion page. Thank you.Sach.b (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The issue has always been about blanket reverts and not particular content. And the flood of blanket reverts was made by anon user 65.88.88.126 and also from 96...as far as I can tell. I don't see how blanket reverts can be considered as very good edits. They are a violation of Wiki policy and it was pointed out by two users before you intervened and rightly locked the page. Now it appears we have another user trying to defend those blanket reverts and call them very good edits. All my edits can be seen on the history page and are well sourced and explained. Makes one wonder which users are working in tandem to manipulate the article. Bo.talks (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd get off that high horse, you were also edit warring. Fences&Windows 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that I did undo the reverts. Please note the responses on the discussion page. Two users seem to be only waiting to restore their 'proper version' once the protection is lifted. There seems little interest in examining the facts. Bo.talks (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jiddu Krishnamurti page re-opened for edits and what I feared is happening again. We have the same users or accounts who continue to force their POV on the article. It is ridiculous to have to reinsert direct quotes from the subject of the article himself and find them removed by these two cohorts claiming it does not belong in the article!. Sort of like having a Lincoln article without being allowed to have quotes from Gettysburg since it offends someone's POV. All attempts at discussion have been disdained by the two users, Sach claiming that even if there is a consensus for keeping the text it would be a minority viewpoint and therefore irrelevant! In other words, "my POV, hell with others". Well, I have done my bit and I am moving on. You can deal with Sach and anon 65.88.88.126. Sad for Wiki, good for censorship. Bo.talks (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Password Strength article (reply to message)

I did it for mine. I didn't for other editors' contributions. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Fences&Windows 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Prod discussion

Hi Fences, I respect your good work around here, and as such was a bit bothered by your comment at WT:PROD which characterized the proposal made there (first at ANI actually) as a "lazy deletionists' charter." That was not remotely the intent when I made the suggestion, and I don't think it's accurate. I'm also highly open to altering the proposal so that the concerns of other editors are alleviated. Rather than simply shooting down the entire proposal and deriding it, it would be great if you could explain what you would suggest doing instead. I'm sure you agree that having 50,000 unsourced BLPs is not a good thing (and that at least some small portion of those really should be deleted), and that up to now we have not found a way to deal with the problem. Obviously a lot of people are concerned by it, so simply saying no to any effort at reform does not seem to me to be a good course. I would hope you could at least agree with the spirit of the proposal (which is to deal with a longstanding problem while still giving editors the chance to save articles—if more time is needed to save articles by incubating them as one editor has proposed then I'm all for that) and then offer your own thoughts as to what you would recommend. This comment would apply to other editors who have commented in the oppose section as well, but I figured I'd address you directly since you seem to generally have good judgment and we've had some brief interactions in the past. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you frame my opposition in the context of Kevin's unilateral mass deletions it might make more sense. I am fed up of the Biography Euthanasia Squadron of JBSupreme, Kevin, Alison, MZMCBride, Juliancolton, Mr Z. Man, et al., and their conspiring on Wikipedia Review. What do I propose? Work through the unsourced articles and source them. No heroic gestures, very boring but entirely possible. Get 100 of us to agree to source or delete an article a day and half the backlog would be gone within a year. It's not that hard to find sources and expand an article, or to get the shoddy ones deleted via prod or AfD, I think this spectre of people deprodding unsourced and non-notable BLPs isn't very true. If someone does deprod an unsourced article without sourcing it, the proposer can either source it (which many don't seem to bother trying to do before nominating) or take it to AfD. There are some deletionists who seem to be unwilling or unable to find sources when others can do so, and they're the ones who will be empowered by this.

Incubation might be an option for BLPs to which no sources were added; I need to think about it more before I support it.

A question: as the NPP backlog was cleared in December, why are unsourced BLPs being allowed through the NPP? Which patrollers are marking them as patrolled while doing nothing about the lack of sources, and why? NPP should be able to stop any more getting through, but instead over 1000 have made it through so far this month. Fences&Windows 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point about NPP, and maybe that's a good way to attack the problem going forward (i.e. making it more clear that unsourced BLPs cannot be given a pass and marked "patrolled" until they are actually referenced). But obviously that would still leave the backlog problem.

I don't think our views differ that much, and if 100 editors got together as you described that would probably solve the problem. I'm not confident that it would happen though, or at least that it would maintain the necessary momentum over the course of a year or so. I think the advantage to allowing the change to WP:PROD is that it basically forces the issue in terms of sourcing. As you no doubt know one of the key aspects of AFD is that it can basically make someone source/rewrite the article in order for it to avoid deletion (even more than deleting stuff that really doesn't belong, that's the best thing about AfD in my view). My thinking would be to force the same kind of situation for unsourced BLPs by adjusting the PROD policy. The goal, for me at least, perhaps its different for others with a doctrinaire deletionist mindset, would be to not delete the articles (excepting some that need to be for notability reasons, and undoubtedly there would be a good number of those), but rather to source them properly, watchlist them, and remove BLP-problematic material along the way. If a task force could take care of that without changing the PROD policy I'm all for it, but these kind of things have a way of dying on the vine so I'm not sure that would happen. Maybe the discussion will be a bit of an impetus though. I guess we still need to see how it unfolds, but regardless I hope the discussion results in some systematic effort to clean out the entire unreferenced BLP category. There are different ways to go about that and I'm not actually particularly wedded to my proposal, though I think it would work. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment about 1000 new unsourced BLPs this month is wrong, that statistic is BLPs tagged as unsourced this month. I don't know the figures on new ones. Fences&Windows 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attack page" notice

It is material copied directly from an AN/I I filed (so I don't see how it can be viewed as an "attack page") but go ahead and delete it whenever you wish. I am disengaging from the user. Seregain (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In support of the disengagement, I've gone ahead and deleted that page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Danke. Seregain (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP non-consensual changes warning

After this thread a couple of editors try to unilaterally (bilaterally?) change the WP:BLP wording to make it more palatable for the famous discussion about mass-PRODding ([9] , [10], [11]) -of course any further revert by myself would be WP:3RR, sigh. Would you care to take a look? Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there something in the water? It's like a red mist has descended. Kevin's unilateral blitz seems to have emboldened these editors to try to steamroller their view on BLPs. Fences&Windows 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Calverpeton

I'd imagine that this would be a fairly uncontroversial redirect delete... are you OK if I remove it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. It's a pretty implausible typo unless you're working from the specific web directory. I've zapped it. Fences&Windows 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

We have had some major differences in the past, but thank you so much for alerting me to the precuser of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Editors who hold consensus in "utter contempt" have no place on wikipedia.[12]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. This barnstar is awarded to Fences and windows for defending wikipedia against major disruption. Ikip 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've not gone, I thought you'd scrambled your password. I don't think I deserve a barnstar, all I've done so far is sound off. I'm going to stay away from this all for the next couple of days, it's not doing much good for my blood pressure I'm sure! Never have I been more tempted to do something WP:POINTy like mark WP:ARBCOM as {{failed}}. As long as I'm riling inclusionists and deletionists in equal measure I'm probably doing something right. Fences&Windows 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a loop hole, I emailed myself a new password.

At this point, to be a viable canidate for arbcom you have to drop your membership in WP:Article Rescue Squadron. But as I mentioned before, although it is obvious from your edits the entire time you never did quite fit in. My oppose of your arbcom was a weak one, I had mixed feelings so I didn't go through your edits as I have in other arbcoms which I felt very strong about. You definetly deserve the barnstar though.

I am glad you are still editing too, we need to focus more on our similarities. (starting next message :) ) Ikip 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this barnstar completely. But it seems that really today is the day of madness. See this. I don't know what to think. --Cyclopia^talk 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fuck this. I'm off to delete the main page. Fences&Windows 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, what the heck?--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people up for deletion. What do you all think? :) 158.70.145.156 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Seriously speaking, please avoid pointy behaviour that will only make things worse (if it's even possible). --Cyclopia^talk 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Atlassian

Hi Fences and windows. Thanks for offering to cleanup the article; I would restore it for you, but it seems Closedmouth has already done that and deleted it again. Perhaps you might like to ask them? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can do it myself as I have my mop, but I didn't want to wheel war. I'll source it at my leisure. Fences&Windows 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In the press (Burj Khalifa)

I notice you added an "in the press" spot to the Burj Khalifa talk page. While it's an amusing piece from Peter Baker (and for once not something about inaccuracies/vandalism in Wikipedia), I am somewhat worried that User:rbbloom might be encouraged to again add his pet theory to the article. It did occur to me that rbbloom's edit and subsequent discussion was simply an attempt to troll us at a time when fighting off the endless stream vandalism on Burj Khalifa was a major hassle. Perhaps we shouldn't be providing a possible encouragement. Astronaut (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as being a great example of successfully battling original research, it also praises the article (I added a quote, but the template doesn't support the quote field). I don't think he's a troll, he's a kook. Fences&Windows 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your pov on Inclusionism in the Unsourced BLP Rescuers category

Did what you wanted! Tc ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

I removed your comment about Bali from the RfC section about the {{BLP unverified}} template; I don't feel that's a constructive place to air your grievances with him. (For the record, I was equally annoyed by his "response".)--Father Goose (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I was too brusque. I made a more measured response on his talk page. Fences&Windows 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see reasoning with Bali ultimate gets nowhere, my comment was removed with the edit summary: "i think your attitude is harmful. bye". Here's my offending statement. Perhaps unsurprising considering Bali's past angry form, but this unblinking fanaticism is disturbing. Fences&Windows 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if only life were a Dr. Seuss book. He would eventually experience a moment of revelation, his heart would grow three sizes, he'd return all the Christmas gifts, and we could invite him to carve the roast beef.

Or maybe this is a Dr. Seuss book, and we're stuck in a bottle with him fighting a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle.--Father Goose (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote in Press template

Hi again. Following on from your addition of the {{Press}} item to Talk:Burj Khalifa, I thought you would like to know I requested that the quote parameter be supported by the template. See Template talk:Press#New parameter and comment if you think it would help. Astronaut (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2006PR_Original_Reynolds_2.89MB_credit_Dave_Pflederer.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:2006PR_Original_Reynolds_2.89MB_credit_Dave_Pflederer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A copyright license tag is still needed. feydey (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the {{Attribution}} tag exists, so I've used that. Fences&Windows 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (Labour politician)

Yes, that one could still do with better sources, though the one I've added does contain a lot more information and is enough to stop the article being deleted. I've put a tag on it noting this. Hut 8.5 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to edit my page to meet the wiki guidlines, but I don't know how to proceed. I listed some 3rd party sources as references, but I guess they are insufficient. I'm hoping you or somebody else could give me some advice/tips, etc.

Thanks.

Griffin Patrick (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear 9/11

I wanted to let you know that I'm not pursuing the Nuclear 9/11 thing any further. I'm spending my limited WP time on several other interesting articles that have come my way. However, feel free to cut material from the userspace version of Nuclear 9/11 to expand the nuclear terrorism article if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could you say that Janjua are not Jat?

Ok, would you tell me why not about jat? I can prove that many janjua are also called jats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublejay08 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That page is about Janjua Rajputs. If you want to write about Janjua Jats, do it on another article. This tribal squabbling is ridiculous. Fences&Windows 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

Thanks for helping with the article. I knew nothing about him until the AfD, so I wasn't trying to 'dish the dirt' when I expanded it - there's just not much out there about him that's positive. Is this source or this OK as a reference to his involvement with Solomon Lew and IQ Corp? Good catch on the citation not verifying that he separated from his wife, that was my mistake. This is only sourced to tabloidy reports in The Age, which aren't suitable to be used for the article. Fences&Windows 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They would seem fine. I'm sure I don't have to say it, but make sure only to report what the articles say. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

Go read the WP:RSN archives if you want to learn about it, but it is used correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's the best you can find, the article is doomed anyhow. Fences&Windows 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good to remember that no source is automatically reliable or unreliable. It's all about the specific usage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But you still need to do better than an IMDB cite to show notability. What's the point of adding it? Fences&Windows 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's called improving an article, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make futile efforts, that's your call. Fences&Windows 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your numerous contributions at User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing.--Father Goose (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing

[13] I agree with your sentiment there, but given the current mess, one salvages what one can. For me, the goal right now is to salvage articles on notable people where I have some interest in the subject matter. Ray^Talk 04:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Viable solution to the biography of living person debate?

As one of the editors who edited WP:Incubator the most, I was thinking you maybe interested in the proposal inspired by several editors, my question isn't whether you like it, (although that opinion is important) my question is:

In your opinion, will the community as a whole support it?

The name of this suggested solution: Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to boldly change any of the proposal as it stands.

I am messaging three other editors who are the most involved in creating WP:Incubator: Fritzpoll, GTBacchus and ThaddeusB for their opinion on whether these two options are viable.

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that page if possible... Ikip 03:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible libel

Hi, Could you perhaps have a look at this discussion? Near the end, User:Nutriveg calls someone a "sold scientist" (not someone active on WP, as far as I know: the editor in chief of the journal that the discussion is about). The "evidence" is ludicrous: this scientist has consulted for an industry (granted, an unpopular one: tobacco), but there is no evidence that he did anything but giving a honest scientific advice. If womeone would call me a "sold scientist", I'd probably be less than happy and I can imagine someone interpreting this as libel. However, I am not sure about this and if it is, I don't really know what to do about it. Should this be reported at some ANI noticeboard and if so, which one? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do scientists who work extensively for tobacco companies have reputations that could be damaged by calling them 'sold scientists'?[14] That rhetorical question aside, the comments are potentially libellous and should be struck. However, I have little sympathy with Borzelleca, and the journal he edits does look suspect: owned by a consulting company and run by editors who work for tobacco companies and Unilever. Hmm. Fences&Windows 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jigsaw Killer (disambiguation)

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Talkstosocks's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alphascript Publishing covers

You may enjoy [15]. And [16] doesn't look 18th century to me. Maybe there should be a list of these. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't even do the quickest QC, do they? From where do they get these images, are they freely licensed? Fences&Windows 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://ms-studio.net/blog/the-wikipedia-ecosystem-expands/ says: "One might wonder if a human agent has participated in the selection of the covers, or if it was a fully automated software algorythm parsing a stock-photo database." I haven't seen the printed books and don't know what they say about images. With 17,296 titles I guess they only use a few minutes on each book including article selection. The National Library of Mauritius says at [17]: "The principal source of acquisitions is the legal deposit system that stipulates that every printer in Mauritius is required to deposit free of charge with the Director of the National Library six copies of each publication, be it a book, periodical, report, newspaper or any other printed document." Somehow I doubt Alphascript Publishing has chosen a country where they have to give away 100000+ free copies. Maybe they found a loophole or got a deal. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fences

You may (or may not) remember me from the Starbucks saga last Easter. I have since moved on and made good progress. However, I recently became involved in an issue regarding the listing of a Billionaire, see Talk:List of billionaires (2009). After peacefull talks, me and a conflicting editor reached accord and ended on friendly terms... that was until a third editor become involved and made false accusations of me being a Pakistani POV pusher, an accusation I feel to be wrong and hurtful. I asked him to appologise but he has refused and has since said that my contributions suggest that I have another agenda. Again not true because I edit a variety of articles. First he said to me "you're pushing some sort of Pakistani POV" then later "I don't know what kind of POV you're pushing". All I am asking from this user is a sincere apology so that we can draw a line under the issue(s). I ask for your assistance because I think that you handled the Starbucks saga in a reasonable manor, you later welcomed me back and gave advice etc. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as Cool Hand Luke doesn't seem to wish to withdraw the statement, you've got two options: 1. Take it on the chin and get on with editing. Unfortunately we can't always see eye to eye with other editors. 2. If you feel the contributions were serious out of line with our civility expectations, you could always go to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts board. Fences&Windows 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, im currently veering towards the first option you gave. Sansonic (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You did it quickly

Hi,

Usually, Admins don't block users before they receive all of their warnings. I reverted 72.161.60.202 myself once and gave him/her the second warning. You blocked the IP right after that. Why did you do that ? Should we report vandal IPs before they receive all their warnings ?

The contrib list is pretty long and all in the same article, but with only 2 warnings, I'm surprise the block came so quickly.

Thanks for your explanation,

Heracles31 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

They've been warned and repeatedly vandalised the same article (on five separate days), and the only contributions from this IP address have been vandalism. They knew what they were doing. I decided not to go through the ritual of more vandalism and more warnings. If there's no sign of good faith contributions or acknowledgement of their misbehaviour I'm happy to quickly crack down on an IP address or registered account. Fences&Windows 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability/events

In late January, I wrote on the talk page of the Notability (events) asking if we could wrap up the discussion by the end of the month. Soon afterwards, you seemed to not be violently opposed to allowing something to be deemed notable if the event failed one of the criteria. You also suggested combining effect into persistance.

Would it be ok and not heavy handed if we kept the section for a few days and then, if there are no new comments, conclude the matter with some sort of combination with what you suggested. All along, my main concern was that AFDs were being closed as keep for events that didn't meet several of the criteria so that if we became so strict to say that all criteria had to be met, the guidelines would become useless because nobody followed them. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for keeping this discussion active. Fences&Windows 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CFD closure

FYI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yippee, bureaucracy is alive and well. Fences&Windows 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Would waiting a few days and {{db-c1}}ing it have worked?--Father Goose (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but wouldn't that be gaming the system? I'm happy to have the removal of the last member of the category reverted if that is seen as trying to prejudge the outcome, but closing the nomination is proceduralist. I've submitted it again. Fences&Windows 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not bureaucracy. It's giving editors a chance to form a consensus which can have some meaning, rather than asking their views on a fait accompli. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You could've just reverted the removal of one entry and left the nomination open, but no, you preferred to close it for procedural reasons. I was open in my nomination that I'd removed the one entry and why, so fait accompli doesn't come into it, don't trot out reasons without thinking if they apply to the situation. That's pure bureaucracy. Fences&Windows 02:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stir this fight up or anything, but I remember reading some user who said he never bothered with CfD -- he moved category populations around according to his judgment and let someone else speedy the empty categories when they were eventually spotted. Gaming or just boldness? I'm inclined to say the latter.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anarchism in the United Kingdom‎

I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to subsume "Anarchism in the United Kingdom" under "Socialism in the United Kingdom". While many anarchists see themselves as socialists as well, others see socialism as a collectivist current they don't want to be associated with. Comparable complications exist with anarchism and libertarianism. Therefore I suggest keeping the currents apart but indicating their proximity to each other. In concrete terms I'd add a "See also"-link to both socialism and libertarianism to the catheads. How about that? PanchoS (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it as "subsuming", rather being associated with. But as anarcho-capitalists would object to being seen as socialist, you've got a point. Fences&Windows 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only those damned anarcho-capitalists ;-) would object to being seen as socialists – most mutualists and some other individualist anarchists would as well. However, I'm not out for gaining points, I'm rather happy if I lose a point to a good argument of the other side. To me this is all about getting the category tree a bit organizaed. Because – as you know – anarchism is not about disorganization but about organization without interpersonal hierarchy. :) Regards, PanchoS (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those changes are fine by me. Fences&Windows 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet completely satisfied with the formatting of the "see also" links in the Category head (cathead) template (too bold, leaving out "Category:" would be better, and both in one line would be best). I wonder if you thought the same when you added a free-hand header to "Socialism in the UK". However, I'd propose to do some finetuning later, as this can be easily changed for all category pages in the template itself. Then we could also add hidden tracking categories for the WikiProjects or whatever makes sense. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Snazzy formatting anyhow, those cathead templates are new to me. I'd remove the bolding but leave the "Category:" as it makes clear to the read what they're clicking through to. Fences&Windows 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Do you mind if I put it on my to do list for tonoght or tomorrow? Need to figure out how to do it best. Specifically the combining of both catlinks in one row while only showing the ones that actually exist might be tricky. PanchoS (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way thank you for creating Category:Socialism in the United Kingdom. I'm gonna be working myself through Category:Socialists by nationality creating a corresponding parent category of the type "Socialism in ..." using Template:Cathead Socialism in. If you want, you can take over this task. Then I would keep on doing the same with "Communism in ...". But don't feel pushed into that, I'm happy if you do it, otherwise I do. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can give it a go. I'm working through the UK political parties at the moment, and found I had nowhere to put Campaign for a New Workers' Party once I'd removed it from the Political parties category. Fences&Windows 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the ISO codes, see ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 and click on the icon to sort the table by the country's name. However, I took a look at some of the existing "Socialists by nationality" categories. Some are empty except for IMHO dubious sub-categories, see for example Category:Afghan_socialists (Afghan communists only). While (contrary to the anarchism - socialism relation) we should be on the safe side assuming that by most definitions communists are per se as well socialist, it could also be said that socialism split off communism, meaning the relation was the other way around. However many socialists wouldn't accept seeing them categorized as a sub-current of communism, including most if not all social democrats. Additionally, these two political ideologies are large and global enough coexist in their own right and not the one subordinate to the other. Therefore I would keep socialists and communists apart, as well as socialism and communism. Both should obviously be horizontally connected using the "see also: ..." badge. How do you think about this? PanchoS (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the sense in separating the two, though it gets murky when you start looking at Trotskyites. Are they socialist? Sure. Are they communist? Well, they are definitely Leninist, but not Stalinist, and most parties with 'Communist' in the title aren't Trotskyite. Fences&Windows 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a quite tricky one that will cause some more discussions, because we don't have a standard definition on this but quite a bunch of these. I certainly wouldn't give Trotskyites a category on the same level as socialists and communists. That would certainly go too far, cause then we'd get a hundred different movements at the top level. We don't have a Trotskyism portal either. If there's not one objective guideline, I'd say: leave this issue to the crowd – we don't have to come up with a complete category tree. I'm open for more discussion on this, though, because Trotskyism is certainly an important current.
Personally, I'm no friend of narrowing down Communism to some historic and/or dogmatic schools like Stalinism, Maoism and the like, which means Trotskyites can be communists while at the same time they are anti-Stalinists. To me the most important distinction between Socialism and Communism is not even the question of revolutionary ambitions, but it lies in the question of abolishing capitalism and private productive property in all its forms or not, which means Trotskites were certainly communists, not socialists. Whatever, I don't know whether and how we can solve this question, so I'd leave it open.
At the same time this doesn't affect the question whether communists are socialists. For the reasons given above, I'd say: no - they are two ideologies that are somewhat related but not one subordinate to the other.
Regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Conservative Democrats

Hey, thanks for the note. I support the deletion, you're right that registration =/= notability. In this case the party clearly did not follow their dream of being a democratic alternative. I have no problem with deletion doktorb _words^deeds 07:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's/Autism Merge

Thank you for your help cleaning up the aftermath of this fun little debate, though it "amuses" me that the IP user couldn't resist taking a shot at me even in a Wikiquette alert. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing what amuses some people on Wikipedia, isn't it? It's probably a Something Awful raid. Fences&Windows 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My spidey sense was correct, indeed the goons are behind it:[18]. Fences&Windows 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for you to review another BLP deletion

I'm sure you must be very busy as an admin, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to reconsider the deletion of the Kevin R D Shepherd article last December. I have followed the events that unfolded shortly after that, when one of your fellow admins (another Kevin) upset many wikipedians by initiating a major purge of BLPs, on the grounds that they were poorly sourced. It appears that the number of candidates ran into the thousands, many of which had existed without sources for years. It was, of course, Kevin who had ultimately deleted the Shepherd article, albeit a few weeks in advance of the furore. I also followed up some of the articles that you have referred to in the wake of the BLP controversy, including AfD is not a war zone and The Charms of Wikipedia, where the author points out that 'There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out'.

One of the outcomes of the BLP issue appears to have been the Article Incubator. I note here that 'an article will need to cite at least two reliable sources and be written from a neutral point of view before returning to mainspace'. Given these criteria, it seems to me that the deletion of the Shepherd article was premature. In notes 8, 9 and 10 of the article I count no fewer than eight citations for three of Shepherd's books, two of them including positive comments from academic specialists. I don't think there was ever a question about the article being NPOV. Although Shepherd's books are largely self-published, I believe they meet the reliability criteria since the article is largely about Shepherd's authorial opinion; in other words the sources can be relied upon to reflect his own opinion - academic specialists certainly seem to have thought so. In addition, there were two external links to third-party websites where Shepherd's ideas are discussed. Given all of the above, surely it is not too much to suggest that the Shepherd deletion was injust, and that he deserves a place in Wikipedia. If not, on what grounds? Simon Kidd (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the recent unsourced BLP blitz is relevant to this particular AfD outcome. When I tried to close the discussion and instead relisted, I was not seeing the notability wood for the COI trees. Kevin may be a BLP hardliner, but in my notice here, my comments boil down to agreeing that notability has not been demonstrated, and I agreed with Kevin's close after the fact. You could seek a deletion review, but I wouldn't add my support. However, if you would like this article restored to the Article Incubator or to userspace to work on it, I am willing to do this. Be aware that an article in mainspace substantially similar to the one that was deleted would be subject to speedy deletion. Fences&Windows 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Smith Memorial Playground & Playhouse

What would you suggest is needed to establish notability for Smith Memorial Playground & Playhouse? I have added two photos to the article, and when the renovations are done I can add another one, but I am unsure what else might be done. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, pictures are a good addition. To show notability, find some more coverage I guess! I added some and removed the tag. Fences&Windows 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work on the additional citations and information. I can add better photos in the spring, when the playground reopens and the exterior renovations are completed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD closing

Hi, can you please reopen the AfD discussion for the conspiracy theory article. Leave it at least 30 days man. That article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Take it to deletion review. Fences&Windows 01:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking without discussion

In the future, please at least make some attempt to reach out to the blocking admin before undoing a block. Your unblock summary suggests you may not have known the whole story, particularly as Okip was in fact warned twice (once by NuclearWarfare, once by Risker), and as he was edit warring simultaneously on several pages, 3RR didn't really apply. Reversals of admin actions should in most cases be preceded by discussion, to make sure these kinds of misconceptions don't come up. Fran Rogers (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking a participant in the middle of such an RfC for edits that were not vandalism or repeated edit warring wasn't a good idea. I didn't and still don't feel the need to extend drama over this by debating the point at length. I have advised Okip to be calmer in his approach, and I hope he will heed this advice. Fences&Windows 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree whether the block is warranted; I still think his edit warring was unacceptable, particularly considering his prior twenty-three blocks; he should know better. But irregardless, you should discuss these points prior to unblocking. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Granatt

Sorry, I didn't see your tag. Point taken. Maurreen (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop by and give a shout-out for the great sourcing you did on the Mike Granatt article. I was going to take a crack at it myself but it looked...daunting. Your hard work is certainly appreciated! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Slow but steady is my approach! It took me a few hours to find sources and edit the article (2 1/2 hours in total), but then I was watching a film at the same time. I take the very tedious approach of going through Google, Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar, and looking at every hit that looks remotely reliable. The subject himself has edited it to correct my typos of his name (oops), remove an old position, and add a source, but otherwise left it unchanged. Fences&Windows 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Crazie121

"New" user who really screwed up Editor in chief, not sure how to fix it. User probably needs to be blocked, that's some unusual vandalism. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, move vandalism, following a spree of other vandalism. Indef blocked. Fences&Windows 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing it! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for biographical articles

I've noticed that some biographical articles are much easier to establish notability. Should there be equality? For example, any obscure Olympic athelete qualifies, even if they finished in 38th place. Being a full professor or even department chairman does not automatically qualify. If a junior professor works for a department that got a lot of donations, they could have an endowed position, such as a hypothetical Joe Smith Professor of History. So they could be Associate Professor and Joe Smith Professor of History. Porn stars have difficulty qualifying but this could be because people want to limit the number.

In short, the criteria to qualify is uneven. Is there any solution? I think it will be very difficult. I read before of other proposed tweaks (not opening the floodgates) usually do not get passed. Perhaps there should be an equivalent criteria such as if you think one person is similarly notable as another. However, there would probably be opposition based on the other crap exist reason and equivalent, but different field, is a hard thing to measure. So no solution? That's ok with me for this subject. I don't intend to pursue this idea other than mentioning it to you.

I am going to propose a close to the event notability tweak that we agreed on and were waiting for others to chime in by late January. I was going to do it over 2 edits spaced at least a few days apart. First, not be so unrealistic and require all criteria (1 short is ok). Later, merging the 2 criteria like you suggested.

I think if an event fails one criteria but is still notable, it will be the geoscope criteria. Very big local events that don't affect the country are an example. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: notability for people, the guidelines are just guidelines, but people treat them like they are strict rules. My rule of thumb is that if someone isn't just known for one thing and there is significant coverage of them in multiple independent reliable sources, let's have a bio about them. If not, let's not, though there are exceptions. Some editors get a bit lazy and rely on ticking boxes for notability rather than doing the grunt work of looking for sources. Ultimately, due to WP:V, Wikipedia articles depend on finding good sources. Fences&Windows 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dibrisim

Fences and windows, I have posted a suggestion to User talk:Dibrisim suggesting just that. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, good, thank you. He needs to take a step back, and stop seeing other editors as the enemy. Fences&Windows 14:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep?

Am I wrong in thinking that the AfD result "speedy keep" is often used and would be the correct name of the outcome of the Austin plane crash discussion? __15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies if there are no remaining arguments for deletion, if the nomination was disruptive or vandalism, etc. It explicitly excludes WP:SNOW. WP:SNOW can be used as a reason for an early close (with care), and in this case I thought it was an inevitable outcome, despite WP:NOTNEWS. Fences&Windows 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the wording on the article talk page, but I'll change it back. __meco (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Four square restore

Thanks for the extremely prompt foursquare restore (Individual server rules in Four Square) to my userpage. Much appreciated! (And thanks more generally for your contributions to Wikipedia, and the incubator, it's tireless admins like you that we have to thank for such an invaluable resource.) -kslays (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

PS You can see it on our community page here: http://www.squarefour.org/coolrules -kslays (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Alliance for Democracy (UK)

Thanks for your input on the AfD article.

I should explain, firstly, that my interest in Alliance for Democracy came about as a result of research into the history of coalitions and electoral alliances in UK politics. I am not a member, or even a supporter, but I do think that there should be a decent Wikipedia article on the AfD.

To this end, I contacted to ask for materials. The press release was actually given to me as material before it was released to the public, on the understanding that the material was to be used for a Wikipedia article. I felt that it was acceptable to publish in light of Wikipedia:NOR, (a) AfD meets notability criteria, and (b) no reliable, scholarly material, except that emanating from the Alliance itself, had really made it onto the internet. Obviously, in time this will change.

For what it is worth, I have tried really hard to keep the article factual and focus on dates, times, meetings, people, events etc. etc. If you feel that I have failed in parts, then your input in terms of material would be appreciated!

(As to my own political views, I believe the Scottish Parliament should be abolished (and demolished), not an English Parliament built, that the Church and state should be separate, and that most politicians are no more corrupt than most of the people who elect them, so enough of this populist 'plague on all your houses' nonsense.)

Apart from that any unintended tetchiness in this reply is merely because I have put so many manhours into the article, that I would rather see adapted than simply deleted.

Amicably, Orthorhombic, 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, any tetchiness is forgivable. WP:OTRS does need to get notice of permission from the Alliance for Democracy. The article sounds too much like a press release, there's a mention of "an historic first meeting" which is pure puffery. I will have a go at ferreting out some more independent material on the group, and see if I can improve the article. The TUSC article has similar problems to the AfD article. AfD is too confusing an acronym for Wikipedia! Fences&Windows 22:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD Banned user question

Hey F & W, wondering if you could give me some advice. I'm striking through the comments of a banned user (User:Newt Winkler is the sock), and one of those comments is in the AfD discussion of Jonathan Cook see here [19]. The boilerplate at the top says not to modify it, but comments from banned users are supposed to be deleted or struck. I was going to go ahead and strike it, as that AfD might be mentioned in a future AfD, so disenfranchised !votes should not count, but wanted to check in with you first. Thanks IronDuke 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I've struck the comment and made a note of it. Fences&Windows 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. IronDuke 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Tea Queens

You had tagged this article of the Sweet Tea Queens for possible deletion as not being notable in June, 2009. No one has responded and added any sourced material for verification. How can we go about removing this article? Jmerchant29 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that article. The group is a local chapter of the Sweet Potato Queens, which is a notable national organisation. I can find some coverage of this group in the local press, e.g. [20][21][22], but this level of coverage is not usually considered to be sufficient for an article. The article as it stands reads very much as though it was written by a member, it sounds like a press release. Often in a case like this a merge might be a good idea, but the material isn't sourced and would be too much for the main article. I think a solution would be to include a "Local chapters" section in Sweet Potato Queens, add some brief info based on the three articles I found, and then redirect the page. What do you think? Fences&Windows 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that since there are over 5800 local chapters of the Sweet Potato Queens, having all local chapters listed or explained would be too much for the main article. (If you list one, what is to prevent from all being listed) I'm sure that this group of 5-6 women do good for their community, but I feel that they aren't notable enough to have their own page. My wife's civic league of 40 women contribute to schools, causes, needy families, etc., as well and they aren't notable enough to have their own page.Jmerchant29 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. The article was deleted in 2007, then restored per a DRV and kept after a second AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (second nomination). Fences&Windows 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Any way to re-nominate it for deletion? Wikipedia does not list every chapter of fraternities, sororities, local civic leagues, etc. Also, it seemed half the votes for keep were unsigned and could have been the same person. Thanks for your help in this. Jmerchant29 (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it can be nominated for deletion again, consensus can change after all. Go ahead! Addressing why the previous "keep" decision was incorrect would be a good idea, noting that there may have been vote stacking would help other editors understand why it is being nominated again. Fences&Windows 16:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the great suggestions on Template:WelcomeBack. It is good to hear from you again. Okip 11:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

this RFC is almost behind us :) ! Okip 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be commenting on. That RfC is a total mess! Fences&Windows 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

War OR

Can you post your question here also, Talk:War#Possible plagiarism, and I'll try to respond? Thanks, --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)