User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fences and windows. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hello, I want to share with you a problem that I have with a user KARPARTHOS. Two weeks ago, the user started to open edit war against me (I will not lie that I resumed with it and I know that was wrong and I should report immediately). He began to add seasonal operations for almost every airline (without proof) or even delete airlines (without proof). At one point he began to submit proof that only strengthen my claim that he was wrong for example: AIR MALTA, the airline operates charter flights all the year on the Tel Aviv - Malta route. The user decided that this airline operates seasonal flights and added proof that it contradicts his claim, which says simply that the airline operates flights to Israel but did not say at all that the airline operates seasonal flights to Tel Aviv. Another example, The airline TRAVEL SERVICE operating flights between Prague-Tel Aviv all the year and seasonal flights between Tel Aviv-Budapest, but KARPARTHOS decided to delete Budapest and write that the airline operating seasonal flights to Prague and after 7 days he delete Travel Service from the article and he didnt added some proof and he knows himself that was not true. Smart Wings operates seasonal flights to Bratislava for Travel Service. I must say it was written all over on the nespaper and on the internet and I have attached true proof. But, the user decided to delete it.Same thing happened with BRUSSELS AIRLINES CROATIA AIRLINES, VUELING and CZECH AIRLINES(the airline continues to operate flights to Tel Aviv and I've proven). In addition, a friend of KARPARTHOS, called RADIO FAN, decided (and I'm still in shock) that there are airports in Tiberias, Jerusalem (Closed), Nazareth, Acre and the Dead Sea. As an Israeli I can tell you confidently that there are no Airports there!. Radio Fan decided that Arkia Airlines operating flights to this places and delete ALL the international routes of Arkia. He gave false evidence that says there the most visited places in Israel (Dead Sea, Tiberias...) that Arkia Organized for tours (Arkia is also a travel agency). Karparthos continues to add this wrong places and he ignored from the proof that I gave to him. I can tell you confidently that he doing it on purpose and I don't know why he doing it.He treats me badly, he wrote to me an statement comment like that he need to find a special solution for me.He continues to lie, he writes to people so they would think I'm destroying the value and it's insulting and annoying. Please help me!! --Assaf050 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved, but Fastily has protected the article. You need to use reliable sources and cite them in the article. If people disagree, stay calm and use the talk page of the article. Fences&Windows 11:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Serge_Gainsbourg#Continuation. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was never my intention to present what you defined as "opinion" in my postings. I noticed that in the article several terms and postings were put forth that were biased (i.e. referring to the needles as "acupunture needles" when that proper term is "solid filiform needles" gives a non-neutral support to the assertions that some acupuncturists make). Additionally, the Oregon issue, IMHO was being presented in a manner that gave undue support to the assertion by the acupuncturists and instead of removing their text I felt that is was fair to present the other side of the issue. I was not aware that that was violation of the rules and I had no problem with you editting the section to make it more neutral.

But I do have a problem with the way the September 2011 appeal was referenced. It is not just a OBCE appeal but includes what was the unusual step of the Oregon AG getting directly involved in the request for reconsideration. The text sayinig "In July 2011 the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon issued an order asserting that dry needling is "substantially the same" as acupuncture." is not quite accurate. It was a single commissioner issuing a stay of the admin rule until the whole court could review the admin rule. The way it was written in the article gives undue support to the acupuncturist's claim that dry needling is the same as acupuncture (which is an opinion not a fact.) That is why I felt that it was necesary to change the last part of the paragraph to "In September 2011,the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Oregon Attorney General appealled said order on the grounds that they feel the commissioner who issued the order was mistaken in his assertion.". It is a more balanced phrasing.

Since that edit another poster has tried to change to article to be a pro-acupuncture position text. Another poster and I have tried to bring it back to the text you editted. Unfortuatnely that other poster has once again tried to post opinion. I am requesting that you resolve this issue. Thanks.

FYI, at this point in time there is no secondary source referencing the Oregon case but the American Chiropractic Assn now defines dry needling as separate from acupuncture but their view is not accessable by the general public so it can not be referenced in the article.Compchiro (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it, that's great! I can't resolve this entirely by myself, so I'm going to post at the Medicine WikiProject to ask for help.

Refining the accuracy of the ruling and appeal is a good idea. But where our article now says "the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Oregon Attorney General appealled said order", what exact wording from the reference supports this?

I do want to try to keep this recent dispute in the article, but we try to not use documents such as court rulings or letters - newspapers, magazines or books are what we usually rely on for sourcing. We should also keep it very brief - we have a principle called "due weight" which is part of our policy on neutrality, and that says we should write in proportion to the coverage of a subtopic in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the link to the actual Request for Reconsideration was incorrect and did not actually go to the Sept 2011 filing. That has been corrected. A call to the OBCE confirmed that the AG actually got involved in this and not just as a technicality. Although I understand that it is preferable to not use court filings, this dispute has not received any outside neutral coverage. The OBCE's comment was something to the effect of "only the acupuncturists think that dry needling is theirs alone and no one here in Oregon want to give them any press on this issue.". Apparently acupuncturists have tried this in other states only to be laughed out of court or the legistlature. But again than k you for advisingme on proper policy. Compchiro (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a break from Wikipedia editing but one user gave me a badge for the article editing, so I checked the page, Another user [1] who got for using multiple accounts and disruptive behavior, just as I claim months before, yet threatened me to take administrative action claiming I act disruptive at [2]. Kasaalan (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

About Homininae: Hello! Since I have largely contributed to the Homininae page in the past month, I can only say that I’ve always written that what I proposed is not the mainstream view and provided links to find the mainstream view. Mainstream does not mean non-speculative, it is temporarily the majority view. In this field things will always remain speculative, and mainstream views change fast. Prominent academics propose the alternative view.. How can a photo of a gorilla skull be not objective ? The data on gorilla morphology may be a bit boring, it is facts, one could remove the numbers and make it shorter. The proposed tree was supported by at least three academic reliable sources: Richard Dawkins, Adrienne Zihlman, and the author of the "Paranthropus aethiopicus" page of the "Online Biology Dictionary" I have provided all the references.

About Evolutionary neuroscience: You are right: the photo of Habilis was just a way to suggest evolution, if you have a better idea... Genetics of mental retardation seemed unfit, which is disputable because it is the only way to learn about brain development in human, but why remove the sections on model organisms too : C.elegans, Drosophila and mouse, which are obviously relevant ? And it is pure destruction, no construction. What is proposed instead ? The « evolutionary neuroscience » article was almost empty, it is back to its original state, very clean indeed! Nothing had been added from 7 june 2010 to 23 october 2011, the article can stay empty for several more years at this pace. It is better to plan contents and give a framework for others to add and improve. You could remove the “genetics in human” section and replace it by something that you find more relevant. I have been the major contributor in the past month, but there have bee several others too, that have contributed positively, not destroying everything. If model organisms are irrelevant, what is relevant ? Tell us ! Why don’t you write something relevant if you are competent ? Deleting everything with no proposal this is purely negative! Not a single sentence has been added to describe another point of view. I can agree that “genetics of mental retardation” may be disputable, but if model organisms are irrelevant too, could you explain what is evolutionary neuroscience? Why has the article remained almost empty for 6 years? I proposed one way out, it was by no means complete, it was work in progress… P'tit PierreP'tit Pierre (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! Well it’s easy, you’ve trashed all my work and now you’re left with an almost blank page, we will see what you are able to write on “Evolutionary Neuroscience” in the next few weeks…Cheers P'tit PierreP'tit Pierre (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fences and windows/Archive 17! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "involved admin" does not include admins who are involved with a situation in an administrative capacity. So even if Xeno proposed restrictions and then enforced them, that on its own would not make Xeno "involved" in the sense that your unblock summary on R.F. implied. My sense is that he recused as an arb on the recent case so that he could lay out the issues with R.F's editing. That again is involvement in an administrative capacity, which would not prevent him from enforcing the restriction.

Did you contact Xeno to discuss your unblock before you performed it? It appears that R.F. did objectively violate the terms of his editing restrictions, in which case the block was sound. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to that (I was, indeed, drawn by the same block summary) that Xeno recused as an arbitrator because he was acting as an admin in this case. You're arguing that because he recused as an arb because of administrative involvement, he must recuse from administrative involvement? Surely, you see how circular that is? — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren, maybe Xeno expressed to the Arb mailing list that his recusal was as you describe. On the request he simply said "Recuse". Moreover his comments as a non-party (as he insists he is) to the request were hostile to say the least. For him to claim he is non-involved even from that evidence is somewhat stretching credulity. Moreover MSGJ, CBM and Xeno (and possibly Fram) seem to work in cahoots now, turning up one after another at the request page, on my talk and here. Certainly the image they are creating is less than edifying. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

My mistake was not making it more clear why I recused - which was to continue to function in an administrative capacity with respect to your continued semi/automated violation of community norms and editing restrictions. Though, this does not excuse Fences and windows' unilateral unblock without consultation. –xeno^talk 14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the user's talk page that the block is appropriate. Therefore it was wrong for you to unilaterally unblock, especially without discussion. I would suggest that the block is reset to its orginal duration, and ask that next time you take more care with your unblocks. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM. A block is only sound if it protects the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

The consensus that establishes community sanctions establishes that blocks under those sanctions protect the encyclopedia. Once the sanctions are established, they serve as a sort of the amendment to the blocking policy with regard to the sanctioned editor, allowing blocks under certain circumstances when the ordinary blocking policy might not. For this reason, it is inappropriate to try to use the regular blocking policy to analyze blocks that are made pursuant to editing restrictions. Instead we rely on the wording of the restrictions themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand there was no consensus. On the other the wording is ludicrous. On the third hand, implementing a rule (any rule) for the sake of the rule itself is pointless, and often negative. Even in legal situations, prosecution takes "the public interest" into account. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

• As an FYI, I have initiated a thread to review the editing restriction given the situation that has been created here with this ill-considered unblock; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction. I would also draw your attention to my reply here. –xeno^talk 14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm back from an absence from my computer. I'm not going to apologise for a unilateral unblock, I still view Xeno as far too involved to make admin actions in this case. He went looking for a reason to block, which always leads to poor outcomes. Such a block deserves no respect. Nothing in the diffs he provided was disruptive and by only pointing to a breach of the letter of some restrictions, Xeno has demonstrated merely that he is an excellent lawyer. If the consensus at WP:AN goes against Rich Farmbrough and thus my action in unblocking, as it seems to be, then I can further see that most admins here are just interested in wielding power and driving away editors. Fences&Windows 19:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  I did not go looking for a reason to block - I noticed that Rich Farmbrough was committing the exact same type of edits that lead to his edit restriction being imposed in the first place, and blocked accordingly.
  I am not looking for an apology - I would simply advise that, in future, you be guided by the advice at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews and contact the blocking administrator and/or engage the community prior rather than issuing unilateral unblocks (especially for blocks made under community-imposed restrictions).
  I do not consider myself wp:involved (as my past interactions with Rich Farmbrough have been administrative in nature); however, your belief that I was "far too involved" is something that could have been explored had you contacted me or initiated a thread at the administrators' noticeboard prior to taking action.
  I'm not sure why you feel that the editing restriction should not be enforced as written - unnecessary and non-consensus-based changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} and the like are one of the reasons the restriction was put in place. Complying with this restriction is not at all difficult or troublesome; and is as simple as deleting or disabling a rule - I see that Rich Farmbrough has wisely done so while his editing restriction is under discussion. –xeno^talk 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Z Electric Vehicle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Electric Vehicle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither if us seem to be able to find his middle name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True. Some people don't have middle names, just middle initials. Fences&Windows 20:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not being used, you might as well delete it. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note about Antoine Bechamp at WT:MED. I agree that the article, as edited by the Bechamp enthusiast, was bloated and basically unreadable, and deluged the reader with footnotes in an effort to present a revisionist version of history as undisputed fact.

So... I tried rewriting the article from the ground up, as a stub, using only independent, reliable secondary sources (which are surprisingly few in number). This was the result. I'd like to invite you to take a look, comment, or edit as you see fit - I just wanted to give you a heads-up since you mentioned it at WT:MED. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good plan. It was out of control and this is a good restart. Fences&Windows 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Peter Morris (surgeon) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to HLA

Single-unit recording (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Eccles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created a page at Wikipedia:Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, please sign up to that and help coordinate future efforts! Sorry for the sloppiness over the past few months about this. Deryck C. 18:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

2009 G-20 London summit protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carbon trading

Tom Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Intermix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:BLPN because of legal threats at OTRS. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Erythema ab igne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heat pack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Stephen Hinchliffe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serious Fraud Office, Department of Trade and Industry and James Wilkes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hurley on July 2010. Was the article about the Chuck Hurley in these articles?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70691.html ^ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bob-vander-plaats-endorses-rick-santorum-huckabee-race ^ http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/iowa-conservative-group-denies-wrongdoing-in-santorum-endorsement.php ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/31/rick-santorum-iowa-caucus-republican http://www.thefamilyleader.com/inside-tfl/leadership

RichAlger

Nope, not him. Replying on your talk. Fences&Windows 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent edits to Template:Open navbox. I was recently involved in a Cfd that resulted in the title Category:Open methodologies but I'd be interested to discuss what would be the best WP:NDESC title to use for the topic. I agree "Open access" is to narrow.

I also wanted to alert you to the recently created WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access. It's actually on the broader topic, but it needs a name too. Hope you'll take a look and consider joining, or adding it to your watch list. – Pnm (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I chose the word "methodologies" because it points to the how-and-what of these techniques, whereas a word like "movements" points to the why-and-so-what. Having seen the usage in sources I'd be happy to switch – better to use a title that others use than one made up here. I think using "open" in quotes is unwieldy, but open movements (no quotes) seems good all around. Open source is the article about these movements. Do you think it should be moved to Open movements? In my opinion Openness should be a disambiguation page.

I wasn't pleased with the way this Tfd was closed either, and I think we all agree aspects of the old template should be incorporated into {{Open navbox}}.

"Open movements" sounds to me like a good name for the WikiProject. – Pnm (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Open movements is good for the WikiProject, possibly good for Open source too - I'd not realised that was the "umbrella" article. I need to think more about it and look at the uses of "Open source" as an umbrella term for openness. Open source should be highlighted more on the Openness page, which is in effect acting as a disambig page, though one of similar concepts rather than shared names. Fences&Windows 16:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2006PR Original Reynolds 2.89MB credit Dave Pflederer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fences and windows,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

With rgd to the Pratt Family Association. (I'm going to create its page.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

You blocked User:PRESTO card because of the name, but there are multiple related sandboxes. Should they have been deleted? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone might find material in them that could be of use. You can definitely MfD them if you like. Fences&Windows 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

...for rescuing RealtyTrac Ottawahitech (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

deleted--Ankara (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to continue, but please listen. A few times, on my talk page, Wikipedians have been teaching me a little about vandalism. I know an important fact. (I've calmed down, seriously.)

Vandalism edits are always bad, but sometimes edits are not really vandalism even if they are bad. I know this very well; and I want you to study all edits I've made in Wikipedia within the past month unrelated to the village pump discussion I had today. I make mostly good edits. I know the encyclopedia well. I know what edits are good and what edits are bad; the only thing I have trouble with is knowing what edits to call vandalism. Do you understand all this?? (No, this is unrelated to Roux's edits; it's merely related to understanding the truth about my edits. Thus, this is actually a new discussion whose subject is me understanding what is vandalism.)

I especially remember from 2006 when I had an edit war with someone named Macaw 54. Although his edits were on the bad side, I was the one who got the blame initially. It took a while, but by September 2006, it was known that Macaw 54 was a sockpuppet of PrimeTime and was blocked indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The key is to try to avoid labelling edits that appear to be made in good faith as vandalism, as it can drive potentially good contributors away. It's not rocket science. End of discussion. Fences&Windows 21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I always try my best describing all edits that I make. Similarly, anyone who says I labelled an edit I called vandalism is not vandalism must explain politely why it isn't. Georgia guy (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The simple and easy answer is to use the phrase "Does not appear constructive because XXX" rather than "vandalism" and we can all go about our merry business. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for the research resources you provided on my Village Pump post. I really appreciate it!

Audrey Anabeyta (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't you please put this topic out of its misery?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for suggestions regarding Cabriana Sea Skiffs. I have recreated the article with the correct (I think) name and incorporated the citations you suggested using. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The Game (mind game). I could be wrong, as I am new to Wikipedia, but are citations 4 and 5 even legitimate? They are used to cite questionable claims, i.e. "Some players have developed strategies for making other people lose, such as saying "The Game" out loud, by associating it with common items or phrases, or writing about The Game on a hidden note, in graffiti in public places, or on banknotes". Is this not the English Wikipedia? How can someone such as myself, who unfortunately only speaks and understands English, edit an EN-WP article properly if the resources are in another language? I can't even tell if they support the article or not. Sal Calyso (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Choice (political party). Robofish (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Cera And Ellen Page. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Cera And Ellen Page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Yaksar (let's chat) 06:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Fences and windows. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Alex and I'm just letting you know that I've emailed you the interview for our project. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses. Stepiena (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see. I'm the guy as what you saw last year. Your article is still short since you had been starting edit. I suggest you upgrade the content that would be better because it would be awful when TOW starts. Break a leg.--俠刀行 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "my article", I suggest you leave me to edit as I please. As I remember it you wanted to delete it out of spite and pretended to not understand English. Fences&Windows 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• We all prefer to contribute an article whatever you said. In my opinion, there's no deny expand more as you expected me to do so.

  First, English is not my native language so it's hard to write something that makes sense.

  Secondly, you expanded it more than what I have done for it. So who is the best choice? It's you. I'm serious to tell you all this thing because it's going to be TOW after months. So please and Happy mother's day.--俠刀行 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can across the subject in a recent AFd for his recently released film and expect to hear about him again when a recently created article about the book which inspired the film itself goes to AFD. Though it might have felt as if you were bumping into a stone wall with its nominator, your analysis at the 2009 AFd was spot on. Anyways... in seeing the article on him had had maintenance tags on it for almost a year,[3] what I did over the last couple days was to address the article's format and style and then expand and source with what I found online.[4] It was not until I was pretty much finished that I looked at the talk page and learned of the 2009 AFD, and that there were sources I had not used. Might you look in on the Friedman aticle to see if it needs further tweaks? Thanks. On a sidenote, it might be prudent that both articles I mentioned above (specially as they do not yet have enough independent notability), be redirected to David Friedman (composer)#Author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done with the Friedman article. I never did get around to rewriting it, but I like that about Wikipedia - someone like you can pick up where I left off three years ago! Fences&Windows 13:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article 'Pig wrestling' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2007/jul/26/greased-pig-scramble-evenings-big-draw/

• You added this in May 2011.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work to substantially improve the 9/11 Humor article. JoelWhy (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncle G also deserves thanks for his pointing people in the right direction. Fences&Windows 16:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society.HotHat (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Very nice work. I said in 2010 that "I'm willing to bet that they will be notable" and my crystal ball did me proud. Fences&Windows 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that, in regards to the iomazenil article, its International Nonproprietary Name (INN) is iomazenil (¹²³I), and not simply iomazenil. As per WikiProject Pharmacology (see here, specifically), all drug article titles should be named after their precise INN (if one exists, of course). Furthermore, this style of naming is actually the norm (see here and here for examples; not all of the compounds in these navboxes are named appropriately, but the majority are, and all should be). Please note that the reason for this isn't simply a matter of being pedantic, but that it is because iomazenil and iomazenil (¹²³I) are actually different compounds, both of which it is the goal of Wikipedia to have respective articles for at some point. Hence, would you mind undoing your changes? Thanks! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you had left a message on my talk page before I finished this one. Indeed, it would seem odd to an outside viewer! What happened was I created the page at iomazenil (123I) without realizing that a page for the compound had already been created and was present at iomazenil. Since iomazenil (¹²³I) is the proper name for the compound (in regards to the compound being described I mean), I merged some of the content that was not duplicatory of what I had written from the original iomazenil article to the new one I had written and then I redirected iomazenil to iomazenil (¹²³I). In any case, it was a careless mistake on my part. I probably should have requested a move first and then gone from there. As for the paraphrasing, that only applied to a single, relatively short line. Not to sound antagonistic, but I would hardly call that plagiarism. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would mind. They can be referred to together, a split is totally unnecessary. And please don't rate your own article creations (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iomazenil_%28123I%29&oldid=493587347), that's not very good practice. Fences&Windows 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Chemicals discourages having a single article for two different compounds. I was not able to find the exact place where this is stated, but here is an excerpt from a talk thread (from here) that demonstrates what I mean:

I oppose the merge. The community at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry places a priority on not merging related compounds into single articles. They're working to have the infobox uniquely identify precise compounds, and I support that initiative. Also, because of the controversy over the terminology involved, it is important that we minimize the assumptions made in our articles about which terms imply which other terms. Just because the scientific literature is sometimes sloppy doesn't excuse the same imprecision on our part. (Indeed, in the long run, our precision may help drive the literature. Research assistants will read this page, and subtly nudge their supervisors to use the correct terminology.) Instead I recommend we use hatnotes at the top of each page to clarify the subject under discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As for rating the importance of the articles I create, I was not aware of that. I actually thought we were supposed to do that. In any case, thanks for letting me know. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was in a poor mood, apologies. I don't think they are really different enough to warrant separate articles about both - one is a radiolabelled version of the other. I think that radiolabelling is not really the same as having different side groups, which can effect the function quite a bit more. A split wouldn't help readers as it would fragment the information without aiding understanding. You didn't actually split the articles, you just redirected to another name. If they are split, which I won't dig my heels in about, then let's make sure we don't lose information in the process. One thing that I wasn't happy about was that the new article took what I'd written without attribution but also removed some of the content, e.g. about the use in schizophrenia research, in the process. If you want to expand the article, the MICAD entry is probably good to work from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK23489/ Fences&Windows 12:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up about this edit from 2010. An editor at Talk:Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas#Have you any explanation?. wanted to know why I had removed material and references. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIKESHED. Fences&Windows 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How did you find http://www.onlyinhouston.org/en/art/151/ ...? Fences&Windows 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Goole image search, sorted by size and/or by date. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited W H Grindley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grindley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Otciapofa , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Uyvsdi (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, F&W. I worked with you awhile back on WP:Notability (events). Would you mind taking a look at my edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to see if you think it accurately reflects Wikipedia practice? Thanks! Location (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Uvula is pronounced yoo-vyuh-luh making it an exceptional word spelt starting with a vowel. Thus you would write "A uvula piercing". Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I remember once you helped to stop editing war between Lithuanians and Poles and this time I noticed the biggest insolence from that type Polish editors ever. User:Tomasz Wachowski renamed and messing around with article Antanas Baranauskas, where he with no reason renamed Lithuanian poet into Polish version Antoni Baranowski. It should be re-renamed obviously, but I dont want to start another editing war. Can you help me somehow? --Bearas (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Mr. Fences. May you fix the grammar and content of the Battle of Taku Forts? I'll gratitude your help.--俠刀行 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've bid a stall on behalf of the Cambridge University Wikipedia Society at the Cambridge University fresher's fair, 2-3 October. If you are around, it would be great if you can come and help by staffing the stall for a few hours!

The fair will run, roughly, from 9am to 7pm on the 2nd, and 9am to 4pm on the 3rd; details are yet to be confirmed.[5] You certainly won't be expected to stay the whole day unless you really want to! It'll be a sign-up stall for the campus Wikipedia Society, and we'll give out Wikimedia freebies at the event to promote awareness for Wikipedia-editing and Wikimedia UK.

Please contact me if you're interested in helping, even if it's just a few hours. Thanks! (You're receiving this message because you've attended a recent Cambridge meetup - apologies if you aren't around anymore) Deryck C. 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your close then? Silverseren^C 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There's an obvious consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Drop it. Fences&Windows 04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how there was an obvious consensus. There were 11 people involved in the discussion, including myself. These were Enric Naval, IanMacM, Conti, Zaiger, 173.219.77.134, BDD, 205.144.73.92, Silver seren, Tarc, 174.253.245.62, and TUXLIE. Of them, Enric Naval was the opener and didn't appear to give any opinion himself. Conti didn't appear to either, but i'm kinda not sure. They were vague and general.

So that leaves us with 9. Of them, 3 were IP addresses that were, I assume, canvassed from ED.se and hadn't edited for a significant amount of time before commenting in the discussion.

So that leaves us with 6. Of the rest, Zaiger is a known admin/operator/whatever of ED.se, so they have a significant COI in the discussion. Furthermore, Tuxlie is also a member of ED.se, so has a similar COI.

So that leaves us with 4. Of those 4, Tarc and IanMacM were for considering it the current ED. I was for changing the article to discuss ED, ED.se, and Oh Internet as a series of wikis. And BDD was for using ED.se in the present tense, such as in the lede, but to have all specific information about the old ED to be in the past tense, as it is a past website.

So please explain the consensus to me. Silverseren^C 05:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, but the bumpy wheel in your logic parade here is that "involved party == discarded opinion", and I'm afraid it doesn't quite work that way. If one of these ED people had voted "keep for the lulz, hurr hurr" then it'd be weighted next to or at nothing, sure. But if they are making reasoned input, you cannot just throw away their opinion because of their liking for ED. If that is the threshold you wish to set, Seren, then we'd have to weigh your opinion less due to your known and plain hatred of ED, particularly because they have an article on you. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then that would again fall into the trap that all they have to do is make an article about a person and the person wouldn't be able to be involved in the Wikipedia article anymore. Quite a few ED.se IPs have tried to leverage that spin against me. And, no, Tarc, I don't have a hatred of ED, I have an issue with them trying to push their POV with a very minimal amount of sources to back it up. At this point, neither ED.se or Oh Internet are notable and I don't want to inflate one over the other just because one's users are pushing for it on the talk page.

Furthermore, it's quite clear that you're only involved in this discussion because you dislike me. You would have no reason to be here otherwise, as in past ED discussions on WR, you didn't exhibit any positive emotions toward ED. Not to mention that you only became involved in the article after I started posting there.

Lastly, I was speaking to Fences and windows, not you. Silverseren^C 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First, obviously I do not feel that "article about person == person cannot participate"; the point is, you cannot exclude users from commenting in an RfC just because they happened to be on ED as well. Secondly, I first participated on ED"s talk page on 1 Feb 2011, while you didn't arrive until 20 April 2011, so that kinda pops the tires on that point of yours. :) Lastly, following a close of any controversial subject matter..RfC, AfD, DRV...I always go check out the talk page of the closer because I know that the QQ isn't far behind. I a rarely disappointed. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be excluded, i'm saying that their relationship to the subject should be taken into question. In this case, when the question is whether their related subject should be given more prominence, of course they're going to say yes. Not to mention that the entirety of Tuxlie's argument, as an example, is "Encyclopedia Dramatica still lives, and it lives at .se." How much weight do you think something like that should be given? Not to mention that two of the IPs commented within just a few short hours of Zaiger commenting, making me concerned about issues of meatpuppetting, especially since such things have been quite prominent in the article's past already.

Though I notice now that Fences' close is different than I expected. He went with BDD's route, it appears. Or somewhat, at least. Silverseren^C 22:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren, you made your opinion clear in the RfC. Your position was not supported by anyone else, and neither did it appear to be convincing. Rather than vote counting, I found that the argument that the .se site is a continuation in fact of Encyclopedia Dramatica to be convincing. Media sources still refer to ED in the present tense, and even link out to the current site. A telling example is this reference referring to "what's left of Encyclopedia Dramatica": [6]; they appear aware by this statement of the nature of the current site, but still refer to it as Encyclopedia Dramatica. It did appear for a while in 2011 that ED had closed and Oh Internet was its replacement,[7] but the community continued the site despite this. Therefore, our article needs to reflect this reality. As the current site is a continuation of the prior one, it does not need to have independent notability. If you can find someone else other than yourself to cogently argue to the contrary, I'd consider reopening the RfC - but if you're the only one continuing the debate, you should drop the stick. Fences&Windows 06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(Now that i'm done with tests) Thanks for the extended explanation on your close. That's all I really wanted and if you feel that one argument is stronger than the other, then i'll defer to your decision. I just wanted to make sure you were taking into account all the variables and, seeing that you did, i'm fine with the close. I should note that there was never any stick, just a desire to make sure there weren't any POV/COI changes to the article. And your presented source is very helpful in that regard and, I think, the first time that i've seen ED.se being referred to specifically as a continuation beyond Daily Dot articles. Definitely helpful. Thanks and sorry for taking up your time. Silverseren^C 04:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

and would not be allowed for an AfD discussion. Serendi^podous 17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You do want to delete the content. You replaced the article with a redirect to an unconnected page, which is de facto deletion. You don't want to merge any content. You need to find somewhere to discuss it - that's AfD. Fences&Windows 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The page now has a redirect to 2012 phenomenon, where it is briefly discussed and adequately referenced. Since the only notability that scam has is in its relation to the 2012 phenomenon, now that the date has passed, any further continuance of the article without additional reliable sources (which have never been provided) amounts to Wikipedia publicising a scam. Plus, you were perfectly free to contest the redirect in the week I posted it for discussion. Serendi^podous 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to start an edit war. I will give you a day or two to respond before I revert back. Serendi^podous 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm objecting now! Hold your horses, stop presuming that your merge request is going through. I will start a proper debate on this at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I was having a read of your essay, I think this article could do with a section on who's who scams such as the American Biographical Institute, the International Biographical Centre and many others of the same ilk. Didn't want to make any changes without discussing it with you first - be grateful for your thoughts. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I added a quick mention. Fences&Windows 21:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fences and windows, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Hi there
You lodged a n merge proposal for Campaign for a Marxist Party a while ago; there has been some support for this, and no objections, so I would suggest if you are still interested to go ahead with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I'd forgotten about it. Merged. Fences&Windows 19:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Common Sense Party (UK) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Sense Party (UK) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. doktorb _words^deeds 07:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I wanted to drop you a note to see if you'd be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive. Three years ago, you participated in our biggest and most successful drive ever and were a big help, copy editing over 10,000 words. We've made lots of progress since then, but have stalled out a bit now. We need more help to keep pushing down the number of articles that still need copy editing. The current drive is already halfway over! Please consider joining it and chipping in a few articles. Thanks for reading this, and I hope to see you there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We miss you! Help us out.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:FK Partizan - newest logo PNG.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you dispute a fair use rationale, discuss it. Removing it and tagging for deletion as unused is very underhand. The logo *has* a rationale for use in that article - please do not remove it again like that. Fences&Windows 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the "rationale" needs quite a bit of work as it fails WP:NFCC#10c. However when I removed the file it was used on 5 pages, with only the invalid rationale that it still has. I removed it from all articles as they where lacking a valid rationale. No one addressed the rationale issue thus it was tagged as orphan. The text that you are referring to as a rationale:=== Fair use rationale === # Use of the logo visually identifies the company and its products in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC. # This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. # The logo is only being used for informational purposes. # This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Does nothing to address the requirements required in a valid rationale. Please review WP:NFURG. Werieth (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a club crest used in a page about the club. Of course that is fair use, stop lawyering and start thinking. This is universal on football club pages. If you're that worried about the fair use wording,try that used for the Manchester United F.C. crest. Fences&Windows 21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fences and windows: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Article Incubator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I found your page on UK parties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fences_and_windows/UK_parties). It links to a document by the Electoral Commission that is no longer online. Do you have a copy of it that I could access? I'd be happy to reference you in whatever way you prefer. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion1191 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I created that list to show which parties were missing from Wikipedia and might be worth writing an article about; I didn't keep a copy of the source. However, the current site to search all registered and deregistered political parties is https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx - it allows date range searches, so you can easily find the 691 parties that were currently registered or deregistered on 11 February 2009.

If you need to, you can reference that old list by using that URL and "(accessed 11 February 2009)". You can access the list from 25 February 2009 via the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20090308165914/http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm? - the drop-down list "Select a party from the list below" shows all the parties registered at the time. The list of deregistered parties as a PDF is on the Internet Archive dated 2 December 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20081206030211/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf Fences&Windows 12:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Childs (murderer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Mirror and Waltham Abbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fences and windows. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20