User talk:Fæ/2010

Final warnings on vandalism

I see that you have given several "final" warnings at User talk:82.198.231.248. It may be useful to you to know that, once a final warning has been given, you can report further vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The vandal is then likely to be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use WP:TW|Twinkle]], then reporting users to WP:AIAV is simple. Just click the "arv" tab at the top of the user talk page, select the form of vandalism (or in other cases sockpuppetry or username violation) provide a link to the page that was vandalized, and click "submit". Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bloodynegro

• Careful with the warnings, there, dude. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry about that. I didn't realize that you had created the first version of that attack user page (when you warned the user about their account name) and the warning went automatically on your user page by mistake. I was about to undo it but you beat me to it.
  • I can see the user only existed for 25 minutes before complete block, as a similar name was created recently, I think the same problem may pop up again. I'll be more cautious with the automatic attack page warning if I do it again! It was a bit freaky being unable to even edit my own talk page for a moment. Fæ (talk)

sorry

wont happen again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpres479 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Contesting of Wikipedia entry

Hi there,

I'm reaching out to contest your request to delete the BannerCorpAgency Wikipedia page.

There are many agencies on the Wikipedia tool and I don't see why our agency cannot also have a place here.

Any advice or direction to make this page possible would be grately appreciated.

Best regards Jess Littlemore jess@b1.com BannerCorpAgency (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

When adding {{subst:copyvio}} to pages, you don't have to remove all of the text, just put the template at the beginning of the infringing text and it will automatically blank the remainder of the page (unless you cut it short by adding </div> at the end of an infringing section). Thanks for helping out in the copyright area! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm using User:RRuk/autocopyvio.js to provide a copyvio tab while editing, this appears to blank the article by default. It's dead handy as it does half the work for you. Do you think this is a design flaw in the script or is this something that the author thought was sensible as a default? Fæ (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just an old script - the tag used to require manual text removal but was updated to automatically hide everything below it - so far as I know there's nothing wrong with the way you're doing it, so there's no real need to change, I just assumed you were doing it manually and thought you might like to know you didn't have to. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with speedy deletion

Hi Fæ,

If you see a speedy deletion tag that you disagree with, on an article that you did not create, like with Jesse Ruben, you should feel free to remove the speedy tag rather than add {{prod}}. The "prod" is mainly intended for the article creator to use if they disagree. If anyone else disagrees - for example, you - the deletion is considered controversial and therefore speedy deletion is automatically out of the question. Oh, and be bold! If you think something looks like it MIGHT be notable, MAYBE, that's already enough to make it a bad candidate for speedy deletion, which is only for slam-dunk cases. Thparkth (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, taken action as suggested. Fæ (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Fæ

Hello Fæ,

Thank you very much for the help! I'll be sure to take everything you suggested into consideration in future edits. :)

Caio--Caiot (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Accounts with "Zeal" and "Zest"

Thanks for reporting these accounts. FYI, these are not compromised accounts. It's a serial vandal. More information can be found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zealking. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out and continue reporting to AIV when seen (and add it to my new accounts sniffer script). I thought it was some sort of bot considering the type of edit, weird. Fæ (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

About my COI on Hydrogen Economy due to my ICHET affiliation

Hi there :)

I am fully aware that my affiliation to the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies is a blatant possible Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia terms. However I would like to add that this affiliation is open for all to see and that I am using my real identity for it, fully aware of the bad advertisement that would arise from my abuse of Wikipedia (we are a United Nations related centre and, as such, are not after profit making). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Dziedzic (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. However please take time to consider the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits. The easiest way to avoid any problems is to discuss the changes you would like to see on the talk pages of articles for which you will be perceived to have a conflict of interest. If you edit such articles yourself, then changes are likely to continue to be reverted and further warnings on your user talk page are also probable with potential for an eventual block. If you follow the standard advice then changes or corrections you would like to see may take longer but you will be seen to be behaving in an exemplary way, which I am sure is your intent here. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How dare you call it vandalism!

Why have you removed an edit I had placed BACK on after somebody removed it. It had been on that piece about George Alcock since MARCH 2009, that's over a year. you jumped up little hitler! yes I'm upset, you have no idea how upset. and angry that you deleted a piece that mentioned his teaching career - something you obviously know nothing about. yes you fae if that's a real name and not just an all over cover for "the admin" Youngpj (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take some time out to read the guidance of NOTMEMORIAL. You may find COOL and Godwin's law useful to check out before making any more comparisons with Nazis. Fæ (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of Godwin

So substitute jobsworth for "little hitler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngpj (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And here's an apology from me too, I'm sorry Wikipedia isn't as nice and friendly as it used to be. "Notice something different? We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia." 

not from what I've experienced in the last few hours. Youngpj (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at NOTMEMORIAL it is phrased for memorial articles rather than memorial statements. In your case no original research is more accurate as your personal testimony is not supported by reliable sources. If you would like an independent view on the text being removed, I recommend WP:3O, it's normally friendly and I'd be happy to collaborate with the process. Fæ (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thank you very much! --PsychedelicMan (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I am simply creating a legitimate page about a genre of music created last year by guitarist Rob Chapman and his band Monkey Lord. SwampAshSpecial (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you first create a version in your userspace, say at User:SwampAshSpecial/Monkey metal (music) (click on the link to create the page). You can then add sources and develop the article until it no longer appears to be a nonsense article. You must add independent reliable sources (such as newspaper articles and magazine reviews) for it to credibly exist as an article. Fæ (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Yolanda Soares - prfile should be REMOVED from Wikipedia on all languages

Yolanda Soares - this profile should be DELETED from Wikipedia altogether. Yolanda Soares is a complete media fabrication with little merit. See below ongoing scandal:

Extended content

Some Melbourne wannabe music-award creator Norman McCourt, of AnR magazine at the centre of ethical media promotion/media whoring(?) controversy in Portugal, Europe. This deserves a serious investigation/clarification as it puts Australia's music industry and name in disrepute: http://www.news4press.com/MeldungDetail_529367.html http://www.montepio.pt/ePortal/v10/PT/jsp/montepio/patrocinio2.jsp http://www.news4press.com/Meldung_529366.html See the AnR logo splashed on national TV (RTP) on different occasions/channels: http://www.facebook.com/search/?post_form_id=aa0126065815a5b38f403041ca54a769&q=yolanda+soares&init=quick&ref=search_preload#!/pages/Yolanda-Soares-Metamorphosys/10150135123710006?ref=ss See from 04:18 mins on: http://www.facebook.com/search/?post_form_id=aa0126065815a5b38f403041ca54a769&q=yolanda+soares&init=quick&ref=search_preload#!/video/video.php?v=1457737605688 http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5890386-media-whore-manipulator-for-hire-what-is-a-media-whore And if there were still any doubts, here's the feedback from another "AnR award Winner"... who admits AnR is a "PR rag": Australian Music Marketing Abroad (AMMA) responded with a fairly standard but complementary letter. It all seemed pretty reasonable, they produced a regular magazine which was widely distributed in the music 'trade' ie. appeared that they had an 'in' into the the industry. And at a cost an artist could get space. So a PR rag basically... To my mind working directly into the music trade, A & R and the like, made sense - so I ran with this. Furthermore Australia is such a long way from anywhere, so marketing directly into UK, Europe and North America in such a fashion seemed sensible. Albeit I do have my own recording company set up, it is tiny, so my objective was to secure an International licensing/distribution deal. The magazine AMMA produced later morphed into something else more 'up-market' - called 'A & R International'. This magazine attracted some well known acts/names and had even more appeal than the AMMA mag. ie for the above reasons. I live in Melbourne and AMMA is also Melbourne based, it is a smallish business and has an office here in one of our inner city suburbs, the office has a music studio which is more oriented to mastering CD's than recording music. The company seemed to come across as the 'quite achiever', very much all about producing these magazines. Last year the magazine set up an award for 'excellence' across a number of categories. re the award there was no pomp or ceremony attached to this . The end result was a beautifully presented CD - which I funded myself - with a gold sticker on the front indicating that I had won this award. I have seen these sorts of awards before, and depending on where they originate they can mean a lot or mean v little, however they do give one 'bragging rights' ie from a marketing perceptive.

Okay, I saw this in the article, you really should have raised on the article talk page as I noted. I have raised for deletion discussion, please make your point as you see fit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yolanda Soares, if this is a hoax then that process will remove the article from Wikipedia. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fae, thank you for your response and guidance- I am not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures so the easiest way I found to alert Wikipedia Administrators for this, was by editing the profile. Best regards, "Ricardochao" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardochao (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oxeon

I'm not clear whether you based your "keep" vote on the Formula One claim, but if so you should realize that all three footnotes to that claim originate with company press releases. I think it's a mistake to countenance this kind of behavior, even inadvertently, and I'd urge you to reinstate the speedy deletion template. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Stross

Charles Stross - wondering why wouldn't that be relevant? A website with over 200 references to work (and growing), articles, fiction etc. by Stross? Certainly nothing else on the internet remotely rivals that for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.49.108 (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogspot clearly fails to meet the WP:ELNO requirements, it just cannot be considered a reliable source. You may have an argument if the blog editor is demonstrated to be an expert but then I would suggest it is either discussed on the article talk page for a consensus or raised for review on WP:RSN. I note that a number of similarly designed blogspot sites about authors are being removed automatically by the linkbot, so I suspect this is now considered a persistent spamming problem. Fæ (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What does WP:ELNO have to do with WP:RS? ELs aren't (necessarily) sources, and thus are held to WP:EL, not WP:RS. Not even all references are required to meet WP:RS, provided that claims are also supported as necessary by some that are WP:RS.

Most blogspot links are rubbish and (proportionately speaking) almost all blogspot content is worthless. This is no support for a blanket ban on particular any use of blogspot. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I should have said "this" blogspot site and referenced RS as well as ELNO. I am not arguing for a blanket ban. Please see my detailed response at Talk:Charles_Stross#Response.2FAnalysis_of_charlesstross.blogspot.com Fæ (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shields

Not at all, and I applaud your edits and your posts on his accounts' talk pages. I was reverting other, promotional edits he'd made in the interim and must have inadvertently not returned some of yours. I did keep the two other tags you added. Any removal of your material was inadvertent. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear. Cheers Fæ (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

username messages

I notice you are adding Template:uw-username to a few user pages of persons who are spamming Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you are doing this in response to reports at WP:UAA, but it can put admins who review cases there in an awkward position. If a user has a promotional username and has made promotional edits, the normal procedure is to block them in order to make it clear to them that spamming is not permitted on Wikipedia. However, if they have already been asked to change it we normally should wait a few days to make sure they have seen the request so that we can see their response to it, and also because it seems disingenuous to ask them to discuss something and then block them anyway. So the problem is that etiquette tells us to wait, while policy and the interest of protecting Wikipedia from spammers tells us to block. The other problem is that their username is in fact not the bigger problem, the spamming is, so even if they change the name they could still be blocked for spamming anyway. Just my 2¢ on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like for any possible promotional/spamming issue with a name I should report to UAA and skip using the user warning template myself in order to avoid any such conflict. Quite happy to do it that way from now on if that's best practice and I'll stick to only applying those warnings for non-spammers. I'm mostly picking up on dodgy names from the new user logs and generally checking that some of the new users with just one or two edits are not getting into hot water. Fæ (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

I appreciate the tips. I did fill in the edit summary field -- maybe my summary disappeared when I previewed the page, and I didn't notice. I'll be more alert next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinky440 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary was fine, that's just a note that the welcome template adds on my behalf. You can use the article history tab to check all past comments and take advantage of the preview button when editing to double check at the time. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Corporate auctions

You beat me to the Speedy by about ten seconds. I just put a speedy on a new Gallery at Commons:Corporate auctions and will add a {{delete}} to the logo. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, nice to get there first for a change. Time for a less than speedy lunch-break... Fæ (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yolanda Soares fraud

Please do consider latest quote as reliable source- several Australian official music entities (AMA, A&R Dept) are doing the necessary to denounce this fabrication and bring AnR's Mr Norman McCourt to justice. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.167.184 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. You added an absolutely terrible source to the article, see the talk page for an analysis. Further additions of this sort without full advance discussion on the article talk page will be treated as NPOV and spamming. Fæ (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Best Practice Resources

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't understand why you think adding best practice resources to the Strategic Planning topic is a commercial promotion. I am not selling these resources, most are free of charge and I am not affiliated with them in any way. For students and professionals researching the topic of Strategic Planning, I believe they need and would enjoy these references to continue with their learning. Is there somewhere else these references should be added? Or please explain why you are against this free content? Thank you

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links that might be interesting (try the Open Directory Project as an alternative). http://www.ciradar.com/Free-Resources/strategic-planning.aspx is obviously a promotional site and adding the link does not improve the encyclopaedic value of the article, if we were to allow this company's site, there would be no reason not to link a hundred others. PS please sign your talk page comments. Fæ (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks about the Information.

Thanks, but ¿i can ask you a favor?. I was in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, my first User it's HumbertoGillan, and a people blocked me, and after, block me this acount in the Spanish Wikipedia. ¿You can ask to a 4lex dude, if it's he can unblock me, please? Please tell it. Thanks man--PsychedelicMan (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to raise your case there using the normal unblock request process. If you feel your case has not been explained properly then you can always ask an uninvolved admin (es:Wikipedia:Bibliotecarios) for some advice. To be unblocked you will have to show you understand what you did was wrong and make a commitment to comply with any policy that has been quoted. Unless you have a significant number of edits, my advice would be to forget it and have a fresh start with a new account - see Wikipedia:Changing username. Fæ (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over Yolanda Soares

Is this also considered a "blog" or acceptable as reliable source? Thanks http://www.free-press-release.com/news-international-sponsors-abandonportuguese-singer-yolanda-soares-2010-world-tour-project-1274468491.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.167.184 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on free-press-release.com can be considered reliable due to the lack of editorial policy as per the site FAQ. See Talk:Yolanda Soares where this is discussed. Fæ (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Yolanda Soares

Again not sure this is considered a reliable source, here it goes: http://www.discogs.com/user/AMMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.167.184 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a forum. All open forums fail RS with very few exceptions (such as some fixed historic archived versions of posts with significant cultural impact... very rare). Fæ (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Google news deletion rationale

Hi, when using the rationale of a lack of articles on Google News for deletion, on subjects where the primary language used isn't Latin based, you might want to try looking for results in that script. Like this one, there's nothing for "shion tsuji" but there are some for "辻 詩音". --Prosperosity (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good point but that is also why the PROD process gives 7 days for improvement and responses. Anyone can PROD an article that fails the policy (such as WP:BLPPROD) and there is only an onus on the person PRODding to ensure that their opinion is reasonable based on the current article and there are no obvious sources for new articles. If you (or anyone) disagrees with the PROD then it can easily be removed or turned into an AFD, at which point much more specialist searching can be performed (such as searching in other languages). As you have raised this comment I'll convert this to an AFD so you have plenty of time to discuss the issue.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shion Tsuji. Fæ (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About George Dragon's deletion

He is well qualified as a musician, check his first album on jamendo, called Time Machine

http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/57770

He is also referenced as musician for several games - even I didn't referenced him yet:

Check here: http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/list.php?list_people=George%20Dragon

He also published New novels in HUgnarian Galaktika, that is considered best Sci-Fi magazine in Europe... In Hipergalaktika 03, caled the "463-as hiba", and also on gamestar's called "A fenyő" that is a Xmass sci-fi novell...

He is also a TV personality, that I did'nt referenced yet as well.. too small time and too complicated Wiki...

So please don't delete him, he is well qualified for the titles he got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekicsek (talk • contribs) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please raise your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dragon. Taking a look at these points:

1. Having an album by itself does not pass MUSICBIO, there must be evidence of impact or awards.
2. Being a games musician may be interesting but again, impact and awards won would have to be added.
3. Novels must be recognized (such as being nominated for prizes or having reviews), authors are not always notable. See if you can find ISBNs. I get no matches in WorldCat.
4. TV personality is very wide. You would need to identify some reviews where he is mentioned.

Fæ (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coolpix 2100

Do me a favour and keep an eye on this. Now an IP editor (perhaps the same user) has started reinstating the redirect. I'm cautious about 3RR, although I know that doesn't apply to vandalism - which is what this could be considered. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, it's a pity they've decided not to take the advice given. In principle I see nothing wrong with this article existing if someone were to make the effort and track down some decent sources showing reasonable notability. I've been nice and given the IP a welcome, I suspect they'll give up at this point anyway. Fæ (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks, man! RocketWobbuffet (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TylerDurdenn

Well i really don't know what to do, i used some references --TylerDurdenn (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, you're not talking about the Coolpix article are you? I have separated the discussion thread to make that clear. Which article are you referring to? If it is Current Value, it may be better to discuss sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Value. Fæ (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, i changed a Beatles stub wiki called "Cayenne", in the wiki says It's a "12 bar blues" and in the music genre says that are Rock music, and i changed the music genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychedelicMan (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you did this against the consensus, as the block says, then you need to recognize that was wrong and explain that on the talk page of your original account. Fæ (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Noah promo

He's using socks, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cartoon Classics Master OpenTheWindows, sir! 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Spell check may have tripped you up

I presume you mean "precedent" here--SPhilbrickT 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good one; an insufficient President would be far more tricky to delete. Fæ (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Question at SPI

Question.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Me again on the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies

Hi Fæ, the creation of a stub for the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies has been recommended by an editor. Now I was thinking about providing a link to this article in the "External Links" section of the Hydrogen economy page. However, due to recommendations on External linking in case of conflict of interest, I think I'd rather abstain in the absence of an external approval or consensus about the relevance of such a link. Although we do have an official mandate from a UN agency (UNIDO) to act toward the development and the spreading of hydrogen energy technologies, the "official link" case does not seem to apply for us inasmuch as no one can claim monopoly on a technology. Can I get your opinion on this? Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gregory, as this is an internal wiki-link, I think you mean to add it to the "See also" section. It would be an internal link so the possibility of being accused of COI is much less likely. I suggest you briefly note the addition on the article talk page (just in case anyone thinks it is not that relevant) and add to the See also section yourself. Most folks would worry about any external links that look promotional (per SPAM), whilst the main issues with See also sections would be overlinking or persistent inclusion of redlinks; obviously not the case here as your improvements are transparently in good faith. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Alumni of Army Burn Hall College List

'Dear Sir,I joined Burn HAll in 1961 in the Kindergarden and left Burn Hall after graduating with Senior Cambridge from this institution.I am one of the few Old students who started from the very first Class and went up to the last class.I started editing this site about three to four years ago, basing on my research and gathering information from other Old students, which cost me a lot of effort, time and hard work.Since I am new to the technology, I did not know how register myself,It was only yesterday that I succeeded in doing so.I am hurt by the damage you have caused to my work and effort by deleting all what I had done after such a lot of effort and reserve my right to initiate appropriate action as deemed necessary. I have added names to the list of Alumini after consulting other Old students and obtaining their consensus, every name that I added was on the request of an Old student.I see that my previous IP Address has also been blocked for vandalism! I did NOT commit any vandalism rather have been vandalised for the ego of a person who goes out of the way to impose himself on the colllective opinion of all the Alumini of Burn HAll. Go visit the Wiki Page of Abbottabad Public School , they too have a list of Alumini.I feel this action is preposterous! I have not violated any copyright nor added any inaccurate information,on the contrary I did not edit some unrelevant information .May I ask why you have repeatedly undone my hard work and what offends you to delete or edit my first hand information? I request you to undo what you have done for the benefit of all our old students.You may appreciate that this site has helped our old students to locate old students after decades. One name of particular importance was Major Naeem who jcame to Burn HAll from Srinager India in 1947 and was a pioneer to Join Burn Hall when it reopened after the Formation of Pakistan.You have deleted his name too!I think your this action can be construed as vandalism. Dear Fae please do not ruin our hard work, and let us build the Burn HAll Page. Hallian6174 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallian6174 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest if Old Boys want to keep in touch that there are a number of free social networking websites that are much better suited than Wikipedia, the most obvious being Friends Reunited or using a Facebook Group. If you must have a list of Alumni, then members of the list should meet the notability policy or you will be contravening the consensus policy that Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. As a gesture of good will, before removing the non-notable list I created List of alumni of Army Burn Hall College but if you add to that list please ensure the notability policy is enforced.

Lastly, if you disagree with my actions you are free to use any of the appropriate dispute resolution processes, I suggest getting a third opinion may help if you feel I have taken unnecessary action. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent AIV report

I declined this because there hadn't been sufficient warning, but also because reverting talk page warnings is not vandalism (It does carry the assumption the message has been read and understood, however). Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas van Praag

I do not understand why you (Fae, whoever you are) continue to change my entry in Wikipedia - putting my expertize and present function in the past tense and making libellous assertions about my character and performance without substantiation. Further, your edits are poorly worded and detract from the readability of the post.

I would ask you (Fae) to desist and, at the same time, I would request the Wikipedia administrator to decide how to word the entry about me on Wikipedia rather than continuing the back and forth over edits to the text, thereby risking deletion of the post itself.

This link to my bio on the world bank website indicates my present functions as well as previous roles and responsibilities.

I would be grateful if you could stick to this description of my career without embroidery or bias.

Many thanks, Nicholas van Praag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.36 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion nomination I raised on 27 May has now concluded with the article being deleted. By default this addresses your request. Fæ (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Taunton School

This is clearly a neutral point of view. These are just facts. I am very annoyed why you continue to violate your privelage of being able to do this as it was a neutral point of view. It looks like I'm not the only one thouroughly annoyed at you editing other people's hard work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danceyman (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have no intention of removing any claim of corruption against teachers at Taunton School if they are supported by reliable sources. Your contribution in this edit was not supported by any sources at all, it was just a lengthy statement of your views. If you think this is wrong, please follow one of the independent dispute resolution processes. Fæ (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian Jenkins (curator)

Thanks for your help with Ian Jenkins - its the first time Ive done a living person bio and there are not that many sources. Once there is a pic I will jointly nominate it for DYK. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I used a Greasemonkey script to help with citations - http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/58747 is particularly easy to use. Fæ (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nereid Monument

Thanks for fixing the citations on Nereid Monument, and can I ask you a favour? I have just realised that the chapter of de Grummond & Ridgway that all my references come from is written by one Mary C Sturgeon. And so deG&R need to be changed to editors and Sturgeon given credit as author. I have the feeling that you could do this faster and more accurately than me. But if you have other things to do, I am sure I will crack it in time. Thanks again. Grafen (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you need to add:

"chapter=<whatever the chapter is>"

"first1=" becomes "editor1-first=", "last1=" becomes "editor1-last", etc.

and obviously "first1=Mary C", "last1=Sturgeon".

As I don't know the chapter details, I can't add this myself. All the parameters are explained in detail in {{citation}}. Fæ (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was very useful, and I think I have sorted it. Thanks. Grafen (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard B. Parkinson

Hello Fæ, I'm Eric, but I'm known here as Pericles of Athens. I want to thank you for expanding Richard B. Parkinson's biography article here at English Wiki. I created it as a supplementary link to my featured article Ancient Egyptian literature. I had no idea anyone would give it so much attention! You've done some excellent work. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. It was part of the WP:GLAM/BM improvements, glad you approve. Fæ (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I remembered the four open bit but forgot the one per day rule. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your welcome, and I hope that my contributions have been helpful... can you please review them?

Thanks, R12056 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! Feedback on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Useful Sites Declared Spam?

Last month I have added a few links to a non-commercial Google site about Rare Malaysian fruits in their cultural and historic contents. On this site "Sample" in the watermark should be read "Protected, Copyrighted". My added links are not spam. I'm not selling or advertising anything.On the other hand on my site I have posted sample pictures of very rare fruits, people cannot find anywhere else. As for info about the species on the sample photo pages they are listed on the Flora Already Documented page.Moreover, I'm providing a discussion forum on these rare fruits in English as well as in Malay languages to bring people together to exchange info. Should look at a site a bit more deeply before mark it a spam. Frugivore (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested RSN on your talk page as your site appears a possible source even if self-published. Fæ (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: External link as spam

Thank you. I have followed your advise.

Frank Frugivore (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Minoan Bull-leaper

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seax of Beagnoth

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BM Commons photos

Thanks for creating the photos required page. I have found this page on Commons commons:Category:British Museum by room with loads of subpages, and none of them appear to be linked to the overall commons:Category:British Museum - I'm unsure how to link them. Could you help please? Actually the head of the category seems to be commons:Category:Collections of the British Museum now I look closer. There's loads in there! Chasuble (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is a grand-child... commons:Category:Collections of the British Museum is a child of commons:Category:British Museum. Categories can be a bit non-intuitive as they tend to grow organically. If you think the organization is awful, you can make some suggestions on the top category talk page to see if there is any objection in re-organizing. Fæ (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel such an idiot - I've just had a further look around and realised that! I think because I didn't see Category:British Museum along the bottom I though it had been missed out altogether. I think I'd better leave cetegorisation to you experts ... thanks anyhow! Chasuble (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

BM category

Could you have a look at this please? Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Category:British_Museum-related_articles_-_what.27s_it_for.3F Witty Lama 11:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

also, by the way, I've taken the "BM related" tag off the article about King Tut. The exhibition about him, The Treasures of Tutankhamun is certainly related to the BM but the biography of the person is probably not - otherwise anyone or any culture who has ever had an exhibtion about them at the BM would be "related" - which is just about every culture in the world :-) Witty Lama 09:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good distinction. The general consensus appears to be that GLAM/BM articles are about BM artefacts and the BM itself. The BM is iconic enough that mentions under the guise of other topics are outside its remit (e.g. BM in fiction, artefacts once on loan to the BM etc). A good example was on TV last night, when an episode of The Mentalist was all about a Roman ring stolen from the BM... the last thing we want is to spend time endlessly trimming "In popular culture" sections. Fæ (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that are borderline - e.g. people who gave significant donations of objects to the collection, or former buildings the museum has occupied...but I think we should draw the line at people/subjects/artefacts that merely appeared at the BM. Witty Lama 21:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and vandalism

This wasn't a good use of Twinkle's rollback. By all means disagree with the edit the IP editor made, but it wasn't vandalism, as they were in good faith changing it to fit what they felt was a neutral presentation. Fences&Windows 13:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, at the time I was mistaken by the title headers being used which appears to be using blatant POV language. This is obviously a fraught article, hence I have commented on the talk page rather than editing again and potentially causing more mistaken blunders. Cheers Fæ (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool. Taking a time out from an article can be a good strategy to keep wikistress at bay. Do you have the relevant text of those sources available? Of course, Richard Littlejohn is not exactly a neutral commentator on Hari... Fences&Windows 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll just ferret the text out and paste on the talk page... Fæ (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing

Any particular reason why you reinstated this edit. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my bad, I was actually going to unwatch the article and did not realize I had rolled back the last edit. My apologies and thank you for correcting my mistake. I'm going to tweak my monobook script now to separate those options a bit more and hopefully avoid a re-occurance... Fæ (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to Red Polished Ware piccies

		Cookies!
		thx for the link has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

That was great and there are some I can use :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you ever so much for sorting out the infobox on the Culture24 page! I was looking through all the advice pages feeling really daunted, so thank you for going ahead and putting the info in: it really makes a difference. Much appreciated! RosieClarke (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Per your request you are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7  10:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I see you're uploading photos from yesterday :-) - hope you don't mind if I amend the details of the handful I took on your camera to shoe me as the author? The Land (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

NP, please correct as you see fit. I have cropped and re-balanced the shots which probably should be noted though the end result is probably more life-like than the originals due to the poor lighting. Fæ (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		The British Museum barnstar
		For your diligent work related to the BM project, not only with Hoxne but all of the funky templates! Witty Lama 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been absorbing work and an interesting way to see the Museum. Nice barnstar graphic BTW. Fæ (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Hoard

What cross-reference(s) are you referring to? I can only find one reference to that newspaper article in the Wikipedia article; I replaced that successfully with a direct citation, so I don't know what problem you're referring to. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As you appeared to have deleted several references and this one was left as an orphan, I thought that others had probably been left in a similar unfinished state. If you've checked it out and no others are orphans then that's fine by me and I'll admit my assumption was unwarranted. Considering the existing consensus for layout on this article, it would have been sensible to explain your reformatting of sources on the talk page. The previous reduction of text in the footnotes section was a deliberate style choice (not mine) that was discussed between several contributors and you seem to have side-stepped consensus for your personal preferences. Fæ (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

Could you please see the latest comments on Talk:Cyrus Cylinder about the BM press release? Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, I've been pondering whether to say anything more... Fæ (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think enough has been said. This user is at the put up or shut up stage and I see little point in continuing to discuss the matter. If they are not prepared to go to dispute resolution and provide firm evidence then their claims of WP:BIAS appear hot air. Fæ (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginger

I saw your note on "one on one collaborations" and have contacted the relevant curator. I'll pass on any results I get. Witty Lama 15:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, primarily just to get any curator review comments. I was also hoping to get someone interested in giving comments for the GA review. No joy so far. Fæ (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hoxne Hoard

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Indenting

Fæ, I hope you don't mind me dropping you a note about indents -- for all I know you know exactly how they work; but I thought from your last post at the FAC that you might be making the same mistake I used to with indenting. The rule is: always repeat exactly what the previous poster put, and then add either a ":" if you don't want a bullet, or a "*" if you do want a bullet. So to reply to a post indented with "**:::" you would put "**:::*" if you wanted to indent with a bullet. I hope that's useful; please excuse me butting in if it's something you already knew. (And I hope you don't mind my nitpicking; the article has been a lot of fun to review, and is very impressive.) Mike Christie (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it looks better your way. I'm aware of INDENT and was aiming to partly out-dent the discussion as a conclusion. In reviews I tend to prefer the sort of consistent bullet format used in AfD type discussions but I don't think there are any hard rules about this for FA discussions. Fæ (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

University of Ibadan

Go easy with all the tagging. Not EVERYTHING needs an inline citation. The alumni section needs few citations because the Wikipedia pages on these alumni mention that they attended the university. Many of those pages do provide references to the fact -see Jacob Ade Ajayi for example. I should think undisputed Wikipedia articles with good references are good enough for cross-referencing. In fact see Harvard University for example - that article does not provide citations for EVERY alumni mentioned in it. The Administration section does not really need an inline citation either because any one who reads the article can corroborate that list on the University website (and a link is provided at the end of the article). Its overkill to require a citation there. Best to use these only when absolutely needed so pages are not peppered with ugly citation superscripts (or even worse tags ) after every other word 24.216.64.21 (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The example of Ajayi was not marked for citation because I checked the article and there were references. As for the other linked articles, WP:BURDEN applies, if there is no directly associated citation then it is safe to assume the information is not properly supported.

Your argument that alumni lists do not need citations is false, the requirements of WP:BLP apply. That other articles may also fail these requirements for living people is not a rationale, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

I have added {{cn}} marks against the names in this list as a section tag would not help distinguish those names that have some level of supporting citation (as hidden in the linked article) and those that do not.

I added some explanation on the article talk page before making changes, I suggest you discuss there if you continue to disagree with current Wikipedia guidelines and advise you to cease removing maintenance templates without addressing the issue. Fæ (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unknown

Oh and you mind not listing my isp on my talk page. That was a bit idiotic of you Gomez3000adams (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are the same editor as 24.216.64.21, then you should be aware that a disadvantage of contributing from an anonymous IP address is that all information about the IP is public domain. The user page for the IP address makes all this information available from links at the bottom of the page by default. I suggest you contribute from a logged in account if you prefer to not reveal your ISP.

Please avoid swapping accounts, refer to WP:SOCK Fæ (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes do not log in. It's just a matter of convenience and shouldn't be a big deal. Gomez3000adams (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If it appears that you are doing so to confuse discussion, it is a big deal and a violation of the WP:SOCK guidelines. Fæ (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As you have made several reverts to my addition of citation needed tags, I have raised the matter on WP:3O. Fæ (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. I wish you would make substantial edits to the article (providing references for example? Some of the ones I added consisted of a simple web search) instead of indiscriminate tags. That would actually improve the article. Gomez3000adams (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious that tagging which members of the list of alumni are uncited in order to highlight them for further research would be the starting point to finding sources. If you wish to defend your point of view, I suggest you make your case on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have been deleting user warnings from your talk page. You have already exceeded a level 4 warning and had further warnings. I suggest you desist your disruptive editing and take note of the warnings you have already received.

Note for other interested parties - please take note of this final warning diff given on this user's talk page. I am including it here due to the user's history of blanking warnings. Fæ (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Back again

Hi, Fae. I replied to your question at Yolanda Soares. I believe we've discussed the vandal/hoaxer account which targets Soares among others? Note the IP address -- it's the same editor. :( The page protection ceased a couple of days ago. It may need to be reactivated to ease the nuisance factor here. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply on the article talk page. I now support inclusion and have reverted the anon IP edits. Hopefully they'll realize that editors are keeping a watch on the page and give up their lobbying (or whatever game they are playing). Fæ (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can hope. But obsessions die hard... (Yikes. Sounds like a b-movie blurb). Thanks for the watchful eye. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Antoun Sehnaoui

Sorry but i am not familiar with wikipedia editing. You had removed from the Antoun Sehnaoui article a paragraph added by sexyw regarding a shooting that took place in a restaurant with a nice comment "Nice story but no sources" or something like that. The problem is the story is true also it seems a bit ri=omanced and the guy was a fugitive for two month and is waiting for his trial as he really had his body gards shoot at another guy in this restaurant. I would like to mention that the whole article is written as a panageryque of a guy and honestly most of the achievements are either irrelevant or false. What you have here is a classicla situation of a spoiled boy who inherited a bank and his multiple shooting incidents have shccked the Lebanese. I suppose he has the mean to have his people edit Wikipedia in the nicest possible way. I dont mean to be onesided but I believe as an Encyclopedy this article does not make sense. Maybe you can help on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.54 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall take a second look over the weekend. Controversial biography must be carefully sourced and vague references to "reports" with no clear citation against claims made should always be removed and then discussed - preferably on the article talk page. You may find using a spell-checker helpful, it took me a while to work out that you meant panegyric, not a word I use often...

By the way, it would be best to stick to using your named account rather than an IP address (I think you may be Sexyvv). Swapping between the two causes confusion and may be considered a deliberate misuse against the guidelines of WP:SOCK. Fæ (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion After checking through the sources and searching LexisNexis for new ones, I have put the article up for a deletion discussion which may resolve the problem. The article is badly sourced, fails the NPOV requirements, contains original research and in my opinion based on my simple research is unlikely to become verifiability notable for a BLP in the near future unless significant impact can be demonstrated in independent sources that I have been unable to find in English-based searchable materials. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Insertion Sequences

I'm really sorry about the link that you removed from the Insertion Sequence page - I definitely did not think it was vandalism or extraneous. Would you look at my explanation on my talk page User_talk:Brenleymcintosh and let me know if I can add links to the specific IS elements? Again, my apologies! Brenleymcintosh (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yolanda Soares

Extended content

I find it almost anectodical the degree of things you write in or remove from Wikipedia without serious investigation. I am Alex Fan Moniz, AUTHOR of half of Yolanda Soares' most recent album Metamorphosis. I have raised your allusions to my name being involved in alleged hoaxes against this artist to the legal dept of the Swiss Authors Society where I am registered (www.suisa.ch)as your comments are totally unacceptable and inacurrate. Whatever issues this lady and her manager have with other people, I really don't wish to know. I can tell you however, that in spite of all the denials, Soares' manager very likely did PURCHASE a frontcover issue of AnR magazine in 2009 and also their unrecognised, copycat award from an obscure po box company in Melobourne named amongst other things AMMA and AnR. If you contact the real AMA Australia and A&R Australia, they will both confirm they never awarded this artist any prize and and never heard of either her or AMMA aka AnR. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (www.accc.gov.au) and other authorities, have been made aware of this scam. Why else should so much "heresay" come up if there was nothing questionable about these people's ethics? There is no smoke without fire. Up to you to either keep or REMOVE completely. I strongly suggest you remove these defamatory use of my name with immediate effect. As for Ms Soares, let's just say she will most certainly NEVER use any of my works again and I wish my lyrics authorship or authenticity not to be questioned here ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.237.247 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) As you have pasted this same complaint on more than one editor's talk page, I shall not be responding here but on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Copyrights and authenticity carelessness by Wikipedia on Yolanda Soares case Yolanda Soares Jim, I find it almost anectodical the degree of things you write in or remove from Wikipedia without serious investigation. I am Alex Fan Moniz, AUTHOR of half of Yolanda Soares' most recent album Metamorphosis. I have raised your allusions to my name being involved in alleged hoaxes against this artist to the legal dept of the Swiss Authors Society where I am registered (www.suisa.ch)as your comments are totally unacceptable and inacurrate. Whatever issues this lady and her manager have with other people, I really don't wish to know. I can tell you however, that in spite of all their denials, Soares' manager very likely did PURCHASE a frontcover issue of AnR magazine in 2009 and also their unrecognised, copycat award from an obscure po box company in Melobourne named amongst other things AMMA and AnR. If you contact the real AMA Australia and A&R Australia, they will both confirm they never awarded this artist any prize and and never heard of either her or AMMA aka AnR. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (www.accc.gov.au) and other authorities, have been made aware of this scam. Why else should so much "heresay" come up if there was nothing questionable about these people's ethics? There is no smoke without fire. Up to you to either keep or REMOVE completely. I advise you however to remove these defamatory use of my name with immediate effect or I will have no option but to take further Legal steps on this. As for Ms Soares, let's just say she will most certainly NEVER use any of my song works in the future. I wish however not to see even a hint of my lyrics authorship or authenticity, as well as my name or reputation being questioned here at Wikipedia ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.237.247 (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you paste the same text one more time, I shall treat this as a personal attack. Fæ (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(In short: I've applied pending changes protection instead of semi-protection). TFOWR 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, that'll do nicely. Fæ (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slight misunderstanding?

The name of the South African team is the Teletubbies.--Hillbilly of the hill (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Troilusvasepicture

Thanks for uploading this. I'm busy with a couple of things at the moment. SO it won't be until next week or later that it gets deployed in the article. And I think Bibi has a point about renaming the photo.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I don't object to the rename, these things always seem to take so long to get through on Commons... Fæ (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

why do you undo me?

bro.. ot erase y information on noahs ark... i just put what it is on the bible no lie on it. read and yo'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joacortesmo (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CIR. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sagging Article

Your self-important undo of my update on sagging is unjustified. I supplied an adequate and reliable reference for my assertions. Any further malicious undoing will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburgh (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Forums such as the one you used fail the guidance of reliable sources. If you wish to "report" me for being self-important please knock yourself out by following one of the recommended dispute resolution processes. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry badman

Sorry. your right my name does represent the band Okapi UK. I will get on to changing it. Subsequently join their facebook page http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1170331995#!/pages/Okapi/106153892741118 as they are the best band in the world :D thnks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okapi UK (talk • contribs) 10:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.makeatranslation.com/

Extended content

"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." http://www.makeatranslation.com/ it is a free service. Our main purpose is to bring together the translators all over the world, offering their translation service in all world's languages and all the translation houses or any other customers interested in having their documents translated from/into any language. The customers, as Buyers, may post their projects on our site and the translators, as Sellers, bid in order to offer the best price and the best job under the circumstances required by the Buyers. You can engage the translator you wish from the translators' list or any other translator who bids, according to the conditions you may require (translator's rate, delivery time, price). This site is aimed to meet the needs for the strangest language combination translations at the best possible price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.238.111 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your business, however Wikipedia is not a directory of interesting or useful commercial websites, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Fæ (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nethy Bridge

Situation has been resolved by wikipedia.

The Web site is the official Abernethy Highland Games web site, and I am the represetative of this, through the Abernethy Highland Games committee. I hope this eliminates all doubt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John c mcglinchey (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion tag

hi im new in wikipedia and i dont know more about this. i just created a page for a famous girl from the philippines and i received the speedy deletion tag. what do i do? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chellipop (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CSD and use the {{hangon}} template. If it does get deleted you can ask for a copy to be "userfied" so that you can work on a draft in your userspace area. Fæ (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I already placed the tag. What do I do now? I'm confused :( I don't want the page to be deleted. can you tell me how did this happen? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annlimited (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be confusing the improvement tags such as {{notability}} with speedy deletions. These are not the same thing. The current article is not marked for deletion, only improvement. The tags state that deletion may (eventually) happen if improvement never occurs. Fæ (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what i need to improve? I'm still a newbie here just signed up. can you help me pls? Annlimited (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

I'll comment on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Musical saw list

I think you need to strike a balance between WP:LSC and WP:SELFREF. Somebody reading the article or flipping through a print version will be confused to read that the list in front of them "should" have links or references. WP:LSC seems to be more about explicitly defining the list in terms of what a reader can expect to find in it, and what an editor should and shouldn't add to it - that any additions should also meet basic verifiability policy can, I would think, be taken as read.

My suggestion would just be to make it more specific, to make it clear that these are musicians well known for being proficient in the musical saw above other instruments, to distinguish it from the other lists in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Gebelein predynastic mummies

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll check through over the next few days as you suggest. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Username the same as company name

Hi, I've just received a message after editing a brief company page for United World Capital Ltd. I chose the name UWCLTD as I would not like my real name to appear here, all the same I am not violating any copywriting rules: I am the marketing director of the main office of United World Capital Ltd and the marketing copywriter of the website, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UWCLTD (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

how do i change my username?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempcouk (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have changed my signature and that should be enough?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempcouk (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:UWCLTD

I change mu user name from UWCLTD to John Trader as requested, but I still don't see the page I wrote online. What can I attribute this to and how long does it take you to revise a short text, approve of it and publish it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Trader (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to turn the page User:John Trader into an article, then you can try raising it at Requested articles. Alternatively you could go ahead and create the article United World Capital yourself, but it would be likely to be challenged for conflict of interest. Drafts on user pages do not get turned into new articles automatically. Fæ (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mico Apostolov

dear Fæ, I would like to develop this article and please give me some more time in order to fully create the page. It is important that some of the economist form a small country of Macedonia are mapped, and as there are not many every ast one counts. Thus, please do not delete this page and let me branch it off in other languages, hence contribute to wikipedia. Since, this is my first article I am still trying to get around wikipedia terms and regulations. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8MA8 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8MA8 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hi Fae. You wrote that 'Mysticbumwipe', may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to intentionally offend other editors. OK if you think so, but I can categorically declare that it is not my intention to offend. This is a username I have used for about twelve years on various discussion groups related with the subject matter that I have recently edited. It seems only fair that other people who may well be interested in this article and who know me by that 12 yr old username are aware who I am. But I can change it if you prefer. Mysticbumwipe (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your name is hardly the most offensive I've seen, however if you are editing pages about people who may be classed as 'Mystics' or religious figures, then it seems obvious that some contributors to these pages may be offended. I'm happy to let it drop and leave it for others to make a determination, but I suggest you add your explanation as a response on your talk page to the user-warning. You may want to line up some sort of similar but less disruptive alternative, Special:Listusers is helpful to check available names and you can always set up a redirect on your current name to a new one. Fæ (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

hi

Hello there, I have deleted the uncited source as it was unreliable. May I ask who you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardusty82 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, birthdates are problematic. As for who I am, it's better not to ask that question if a user does not include personal details on their userpage. Fæ (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kollam

Per WP:PRESERVE did you try to find sources for the content you removed? Aditya Ex Machina 07:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Random incomplete and unsourced lists of commercial organizations fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced information of this type was not intended to be covered by the guidance you are highlighting. Citations had been requested for some time previous to my removal of the text so in practice I was complying with these guidelines anyway.

In the past I have moved such lists to the talk page in order to encourage others to look for sources before re-adding, you may want to try this if you want to help though unfortunately I cannot remember an occasion when this made a difference to the outcome. Fæ (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)DIRECTORY should not be applicable here. The list of hospitals did not dominate the article. And PRESERVE does cover this. It covers all unsourced material short of BLPs. I understand that the citation template existed before your removal, PRESERVE still applies. Which guideline are you following? Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, material moved to talk pages aren't usually sourced. Aditya Ex Machina 08:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I aim to follow the fundamental principles, any challenged information on Wikipedia requires sources, see WP:Five pillars #2. I do not understand your point you are making here, NOTDIRECTORY is not qualified by a need that any such list "dominates" an article before it applies. If you wish to discuss further, perhaps you could take it up on the article talk page, it may be appropriate for a WP:3O request if you still feel I am wrong. Fæ (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Aditya Ex Machina 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mico Apostolov

what is your problem man! do u have some sort of problem with Macedonians!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8MA8 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software archaeology

Saw your AfD. A mistake, surely? You might like to check the current state of the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The nomination was for this original version. If later improvements have addressed the basis of the nomination this is quite normal and does not mean that the nomination was a mistake. Your claim that I failed to follow the WP:BEFORE guidelines is incorrect, a search on Google Books and Google News showed little evidence for support of this usage, in fact rather more for the alternate meaning, and that conferences and papers may exist for a topic does not make it a common phrase suitable for an article title.

If you wish to pursue this line further I suggest a dispute resolution process as making such comments are complaints about me rather than discussing the article. As you appear to be writing to contributors to the AFD to sway their opinions, I suggest you take a careful look at the guidance of Canvassing first. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, sorry! No offence intended! You've certainly done the right thing, and the initial article was definitely AfD-bait. I did wonder at first why your Google search didn't find all the relevant material, but that was explained by the coexistence of two different spellings for the term. Guess I should have posted here again when I realised that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sorry - Undid and Went On The Talk Page

Sorry, I got the message right after I went to the talk page cuz I'm a wiki vet I should know this! I undid the edits, just look at what I put on the talk page and respond if you agree or disagree with me thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Genius77 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. Fæ (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, and sorry for not signing. What do you think about what I said on the talk page? Do you agree? Evil Genius77 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposal is fine, you may want to prefix the discussion thread title with "Proposal:" and qualify what 'famous' means. For example the inclusion criteria could be "Two or more HP film appearances or major single appearances from Academy and BAFTA award winning actors." This is a question of style and I understand why the list is kept short in the article, I'd probably look for a firmer criteria such as only listing a maximum of 15 actors based on their time on-screen in the film... Fæ (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth Grammar School alumni removals

Hello Fae, I was initially highly irritated to see you'd removed some of the Old Portmuthians I'd added; but then I realised the problem with incorrect edits, so I cooled down - apology for intial thoughts. On Portsmouth Grammar School, you have kept Professor Mark Birkinshaw and Rear Admiral Christopher Parry, for example, both of whom I put on, but removed Professor Hilaire McCoubrey and Professor David Newton. These four I know were at the School; others I admit I found via Google. For confirmation, each one of these may know some/all of the others and are easily found on university sites: http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/birkinshaw_m/index.html http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/Staff_Academic.html where their e-mail addresses can be found. Can you e-mail to obtain the req'd confirmations? Mark.Birkinshaw@bristol.ac.uk David.Newton@nottingham.ac.uk Professor Hilaire McCoubrey is dead but a significant Law & Military Historian, expert on Law of Conflicts and a significant contributor to the International Red Cross - he was talking at a major event in Islamabad on the day he suddenly died.

Hi Professor859 (talk · contribs), you may find my essay User:Fæ/Alumni of interest. The general issue with lists of notable alumni is the level of proof required both for notability and that they really are an alumnus (rarely understood by most contributors).

Emailing people and checking would need to use the WP:OTRS process, and seems a bit over the top when the list could probably have plenty of inclusions by just sticking to those that are easy to verify (historical well documented figures, the notable deceased using obituaries and alumni with documented active associations with the school). For example McCoubrey can be supported by this biography which mentions him at PGS and by default all Professors (in the UK sense of the term) are considered notable as defined by WP:PROF. I'll add McCoubrey back in with this citation.

Personally I'm not that fond of alumni lists embedded in articles, they are by definition incomplete, poorly maintained and a magnet for spam and self-promotionists. Sorry you feel a bit aggrieved about the deletions but it would probably be an awful lot more useful to create articles (or request them at Wikipedia:Requested articles) about notable professors rather than just add their names in an alumni list. Wikipedia is woefully under represented with articles about UK professors compared to the plentiful supply of USA academics called 'professor'... Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More or less neutral

Sorry I was ambiguous. I am neutral on whether or not the article should be deleted. I think the term is important, but the way it is just floating out there without any real connection to another article doesn't make sense. It does seem more sensible to incorporate it into the Pearl page. JPShepherd (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Toni Packer photo

Hello Fæ! Thank you very much for posting instructions on my page. While I was studying the Wikimedia I came across instructions about submitting photo by e-mail! This turned out to be the easiest. My friend sent three pictures to photosubmission@wikimedia.org. He also asked that one of them to be placed at Toni Packer page. May I ask you to look if the pictures arrived? Thank you very much! Spt51 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good tip as I had no idea (or maybe forgot) that Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission existed to help uploaders. I can't see any photos matching the search for Toni Packer yet and the page does say they may take a long time before responding to the email. I would expect that your friend would get a reply when they are done (that's normally how these sort of things work). The last time I used OTRS it took several weeks before my 'OTRS ticket' was created.

From the IRC channel the intro message says there is a photo submission backlog of 170 emails which may give you some idea that it'll take a while. Fæ (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fæ! This morning I did check Toni Packer page and the photo was already there. They are quick! For your information I am copying the paragraph about photo submission by e-mail to Wikimedia. Unfortunately I do not remember where I found this... somewhere in Wikimedia or Wikipedia.

email template

Please e-mail the photo in the highest available resolution to photosubmission@wikimedia.org In that email, you must explicitly state: 1. That you own the copyright on the photo—you photographed it yourself, it is a work for hire (if you are unclear as to the term, please read the hyperlinked article), or the copyright was transferred to you via written statement or operation of law (e.g., inheritance). Please specify which scenario applies, and please note that just because you commissioned a photographer to take a photo and paid for it does not (in most countries) mean that you own the copyright of the photo. 2. What copyright license you want to release it under. Whatever license you choose must allow the photo to be freely copied and modified by anyone, including third parties not affiliated with Wikipedia, for any purpose. (See Licensing/Justifications for a detailed explanation of why.) We recommend using the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. 3. How you would like the copyright holder to be attributed, e.g. by your name, your company, etc.

Thank you very much for help, and yes we always learn something new. Please, share this with Slp1 too.Spt51 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad the system worked so well. The template disclaimer is on the OTRS page linked before. Fæ (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Collider (Epidemiology)

Thanks a lot Fæ. I'll remember to put ISBN from now on from Worldcat. Thanks again Quantumash (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Lemley

Hey, there is no known or enforced copy right for the photo uploaded on the site. If it were registered with a watermark or locked from right-clicking, then a known copy right is enforced. If the copyright exists, and is entered into the public domain without restrictions, or limitations on the use thereof, it is free for use in the public domain, provided a profit is not derived from it, thus my photo should be valid for use on a wiki page. In addition to that removal, the original source used to cite he had a child ith a notable actress, imdb.com, is secure and only edited by people with sufficient source-able information to cite their knowledge of such a detail, thus making it a cite-able source. If I could use imdb.com, but not wikipedia, as a valid source for a research paper I published, something is wrong with your choice to cite it as an invalid source. Also, one should note that many other entertainment figures have imdb as the source to their information. Veritasenlumine (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your question is in two parts so I'll break my reply that way.

• Image - I think you are referring to File:JlemleyUidaho.jpg. With regard to this image:
  • I found the image on http://www.uidaho.edu/cbe/experientiallearning/executiveconnections which is covered by the University of Idaho copyright (which has all rights reserved). If the image has been released on a different official website (i.e. not some random person on Flickr) with a suitable license for Commons, then you can add that as a source for the image in its description. The image may well be on other, unofficial, websites. This does not mean that Wikipedia or Commons can accept a fair-use type argument that copyright does not apply. Copyright still applies even without watermarks or JavaScript based protection techniques.
  • If you own the copyright and wish to release your photo into the public domain, then I suggest you follow the Commons:OTRS process in order to send a confidential email to release the image.
• IMBD - With regard to using IMDB as a source for personal information, if you search through the Reliable sources/Noticeboard archive (search link) you can see lengthy debates about it. The conclusion is that IMDB makes no firm editorial policy as to the data it includes, in particular it includes user submitted information without a definite policy for editorial control, and it should not be used as the sole source for personal information.

You may find the information at Copyright assistance and Biographies of living persons helpful if you are not already familiar with them. You may also want to raise your points on the article talk page for other contributors to comment on if you are not convinced by my reply. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Irregardless, just because this photo was found on the Uidaho website, does not mean it is held as a copyright by Uidaho. You don't know any more than I do as to the ownership of this copyright. & according to copyright law, if one does not know a license exists, and one does not know who owns the copyright, and there is no way to discover the rights, or know if there are restrictions, fair use applies. If wikipedia does not want to correspond to fair use, then it should not except any photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasenlumine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of copyright law seems to be incompatible with yours and in the case of the photo in question checking the copyright status is as easy as seeing it on the University website which itself is All rights reserved. If you wish to discuss further then please do so on the article talk page. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstood "secret letter" fraternity. DTD is not making membership secret, it is a secret letter frat in that the frat is a social organization that has secrets to its long running history, and when you earn your Greek letters, you get to learn those secrets, thus it is called a secret letter fraternity, as opposed to an "academic fraternity" or a "cultural fraternity". Thus, I have undone that edit, as it has nothing to do with making membership secret, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasenlumine (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out and reversing my edit. It's probably worth linking to somewhere that explains the concept, such as another article about Frats, so that foreigners like me can catch on. Fæ (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, the whole Greek concept is pretty foreign to me too. I stayed away from such GPA-killing activities in college. However, many friends of mine participated in Greek life, thus the knowledge I have of it. I will add a link to the concept. Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your instructions here. I had just typed a very long set of instructions on the topic, only to edit conflict and see that you had summed everything up in three well crafted sentences.  :) Kuru (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the complement. Thank you Fæ (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha yeah i understand. It was false anyway, i was just pulling a prank on my friend

Gicobgicob (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Gicobgicob

Please don't, it wastes time for other editors and hoaxes or pranks are treated as vandalism. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You dont have to be rude about it Gicobgicob (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Gicobgicob

Good day

Hello, you do not know me, but I see you have nominated an article for deletion on the "Articles for deletion" page. I have attempted to do the same, but am unsure of the correct procedure. I have followed the instructions of the "Articles for deletion" page, but all that comes up on the screen is a mess. Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Spoke shook (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing to do by hand. I use WP:TWINKLE to help out, this sorts out the notification and formatting. However considering you have yet to pass 100 edits, you may want to think again about using these sort of Wikipedia processes. Instead of doing the nomination yourself, you could suggest it fails the notability requirements on the article talk page and ask for opinions. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. D. Reynolds, this is the third nomination, a fact that should make you think twice before nominating as it is obviously controversial already and a third nomination would need some careful research and wording to be fresh and appropriate. I suggest you request deletion of your current nomination page (using {{db-g7}}) and do some background reading on Twinkle. Fæ (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I eat my words, I happened to revisit the AfD and can see it went well and after this third discussion there was a reasonable consensus to delete. Congratulations. Fæ (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your suggestions and help regardless. It also W"Ent well" with the exception of a couple of people swearing at me, and accusing me of some bizarre conspiracy. But, anyway, thanks. Spoke shook (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoheys/The Recording of the Israel Declaration of Independence

Hi, I've asked a review of the article on my User:Hoheys/ but have not received any yet. I actually didn't mean to delete the live article, only to point out my mistake. I'll appreciate your advice on the common practice in such a situation, namely: To leave the live article or not? To wait for a review? If there will not be any review, maybe going live will expose the article to many more readers? Thanks Hoheys (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that if you have finished adding sources you should try posting it live. However before that you may want to take a deep breath and hunt out a few more sources and reference them in the body of the text as footnotes, in particular any books that mention the recording and its recovery and links to the institutes mentioned (like the Philharmonic, the IBA archives, the DVD itself). A citation nicely formatted for the DVD is below.

• Losin, Yigʼal; Eisenmann, Ya'akov; McKellen, Ian; Israel. Rashut ha-shidur (2005), Pillar of fire : a television history of Israel's rebirth, Israel Broadcast Authority, ISBN 9781560863632 {{citation}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
• Lossin, Yigal; Zionist Organization. Youth and Hechalutz Department. Educational Centre (1984), Pillar of fire : a poster exhibit, partially based on the Israel television documentary series : [text of the poster exhibition by Yigal Lossin], Multi-media programming kits, 7., Educational Resource Centre, Youth and Hechalutz Dept., WZO, OCLC 233660354

I think you probably know how to move the document to make it live, let me know if you want a hand. Fæ (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The citation for the DVD is great indeed and I'll add it as a footnote, as you suggested. The Philharmonic and the IBA are already covered by Wikipedia articles - aren't these sufficient as citations?

No, for a well sourced article you should not rely on only the internal wiki link, this is because the other article may be significantly changed over time (improved or possibly degraded) and the claims you make in this article may no longer be supported and the reader cannot be expected to check the linked articles. In comparison reliable sources are fixed in time and so quality sources forever. Fæ (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

An important source is a book but in Hebrew and therefore I hesitated to include it - what's your advice?

It's fine to add, the guidance is WP:NONENG which advises you to add an English translation where suitable (such as the title). Fæ (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As to moving the document back to live, I would appreciate your help - do I undelete or re-create? I'm not familiar with any of these options. Thanks again!109.186.29.32 (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You only have to move it again. Drop me a note if you want me to do this for you once you've had a crack at adding the extra sources. Fæ (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks again for the good advice! I've added links and the citation and I believe it's ready now to go live. The changes were made to the article in my userspace and I'll appreciate your help in moving it to live Hoheys (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, I've added the categories and I'll keep an eye on the article as you suggested. Thanks a million !!! Hoheys (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Staeta (Soy Milk)

I have rewritten the article about the product keeping in mind the objections raised. This is a single product company so a wiki article about the brand is a better idea than a wiki article about the company. The brand itself is pretty popular. However, I am pretty new at Wiki edits so would appreciate your help on how to fix it so that it conforms to wiki standards and is not deleted. Regards - Sudeep88 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good for you for keeping at it. However I still cannot see it meeting WP:ORG in the near future due to a fundamental lack of available sources. I have just searched for the company on LexisNexis and only find one article (below) which verges on being a PR statement. Please see WP:USERFY for an explanation of what my recommendation in the AfD means. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Source on Lexis for 'Staeta' and 'Soy Milk'

Business Line August 5, 2004 PROSOYA LAUNCHES SOYA MILK, EYES RS 4-CR TURNOVER IN FIRST YEAR Bangalore, August 4 - SOYA milk, which once faced virtual rejection for its 'beanie flavour' or odour, has been relaunched in India by ProSoya Foods. The product that was test-launched in January this year in five flavours has already received good response, said the Canada-based Mr RajendraGupta, promoter of ProSoya Inc. Its subsidiary, ProSoya Foods India (Pvt) Ltd has set up a soya milk extraction plant in Madhya Pradesh, and projected a sales turnover of Rs 3 crore to 4 crore in the first year. A patented technology of ProSoya, 'Soy Milk' is a product sold under the brand name Staeta. The technology eliminates the odour in soymilk, making it a palatable beverage with zero calorie loading. Unlike in Western countries where soya milk was becoming popular, with Australia claiming a 6 per cent penetration into the total dairy milk production, India with a 45 million litre production in the unorganised sector alone still has less than 1 per cent production of the conventional bovine milk. Talking to Business Line, Mr Rajendra Gupta, President, ProSoya Inc, said, with soya milk becoming palatable, its potential has gone up reflecting in three organised players strafing the market with a combined capacity of more than 60 million litres. Apart from ProSoya, Godrej also relaunched soyamilk recently after its unsuccessful venture in the 1980s. Mr Gupta said ProSoya utilises only 5 per cent of its total 20-million-litre capacity to extract soya milk. It uses Godrej's plant adjacent to its unit for formulation and packaging. With its distributors' network in major metros and tie-up with leading super markets and chemists stores, ProSoya was optimistic of doubling its turnover every year in the next five years. Our Bureau

Hi, I shall look into this source as well and try and add it to the article. I have also added a reference of a book for the article as a credible source. Do look at it and let me know if it will work fine. It is currently the the first reference on the article page. Also, do let me know if I have used the template correctly. Regards - Sudeep88 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Takahisa Suzuki

Would you just go ahead and block this user for repeated removal of speedy tags? It's happened more times than I care to count. I realize there's probably a language barrier going on, but if they're not conversant enough in English to read the warnings or write coherent articles then they should get a wake-up block anyway. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• User:Takahisa Suzuki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Okay, listed at WP:AIV for CSD removal after 4th warning. Fæ (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh

Thank you for repairing the damage i did to the article. Unintentional, and i hope, not too much of an inconvenience.

I looked at the "editor review" page where you requested response, but i chose to contact you here, instead. I hope that's o.k. This is intended primarily as an apology, and as such didn't seem appropriate in a review. Also, i am new to WP and its ways, and will refrain from reviewing others until i have a better grasp of mission and policies, etc.

By the way, congrats on your edits. I can't imagine, but WP is addictive, i have to say, so maybe someday i'll follow in your footsteps. I've always found it frustrating to be reading the paper, or any publication, and can't fix a glaring typo, run on sentence or spelling error. I think a free library is a brilliant idea. I just hope our powers-that-be don't decide to tax it, somehow, or charge by the byte for internet access.

Anyway, sorry, and hope not to cause further problems. Good editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragityman (talk • contribs) 08:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note back. Somehow I doubt that WP would ever become non-free as we would all go somewhere else pretty quickly. If you see an error or want to suggest improvements then article talk pages are a handy way of proposing changes without having to get all the Wiki syntax or other conventions right. Glad to see you don't feel proprietorial about your contributions. See WP:New contributors' help page if you have some questions as a new editor. Fæ (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I typed a PS, but it didn't save. Having hardware problems, which i think are causing these accidental deletions. Sometimes when i "save" these messages, they don't save. Hardware locks up and all i can do is exit the browser and start over. In editing an article, sometimes when I "paste," I delete large portions of the article: nearly 25kbytes in Evelyn Waugh!

I'll figure out what i'm doing wrong, or else find a different way to edit. Meanwhile, thanks for your patience.

Ragityman (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When i couldn't get this to "save," i sent it to you as an email. Thot i'd try it here again, as this is where we started the conversation.

Ragityman (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nikolaos Georgikopoulos

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nikolaos Georgikopoulos, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolaos Georgikopoulos. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

StarQuest Online

Hello,

thank you for your message. I am an official representative of the publisher, publishing the game StarQuest Online and I am in the process of editing the text to update it. In addition I was attempting to upload a new logo we made for the game. I however wasn't able to do so because I am apparently lacking the permissions to do so.

Please let me know if there are other ways to get the new image uploaded. Thank you in advance.

Benjamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbuske (talk • contribs) 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please upload the image using Commons:Upload with whichever options you prefer including an {{OTRS pending}} template in the additional information box. Then send an email from a suitable corporate address (preferably associated with the source website; gmail, hotmail, yahoo and other free addresses are not credible) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org which must include the website link to the image on Commons, a licence statement based on that given at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and a brief explanation of the situation.

Note that replies may take days or weeks depending on the availability of volunteers to reply to your email. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

libelous content

Hello. You removed an edit I did to Wyatt Roy's page pointing out that he hadn't yet graduated, saying that my edit was libelous. Sorry! I'm not sure how to reference stuff in the side bar. Perhaps you could help me? In fact, I can't see any references for things in the sidebar when I read the article, and I'm not sure where the references go. Here is my reference, from the Aus newspaper: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/youngest-mp-not-all-about-money/story-fn59niix-1225909103168 Maybe you can show me how to put it in? Basically I was just copying Bill Gates' entry, which is similar to my edit (i.e. it also says something like "(has not completed degree)" in the Alma mater cell). How is it libelous? Thanks very much for helping me with this.55604PP (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, added some advice on how to cite the information previously removed as unsourced on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks, all done.55604PP (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Labshare

Except that their edits are BLP violations. I've reported them to AIV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, though please note that BLP does not normally apply to talk pages, you probably want to reference WP:TALKNO. Talk pages may, for example, be used to discuss sources which would be challenged as unreliable in the article itself. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLP says it doesn't apply to Talk pages? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people mentioned in the article "evil" in the Talk page is surely not acceptable?> Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right and normally one would refer to No personal attacks or Talk page guidelines to cover the situation. You could refer to WP:BLPTALK, it's just not the most direct guidance for what appear to be defamatory edits and vandalism. Fæ (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

REFUND

Hi Fae, is it true that you have access to OTRS but not deleted content? I had assumed that OTRS volunteers were able to undelete the things they got tickets for, copyvio deletes are quite likely for this material. I may have to change my advice to those that offer permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Volunteers for OTRS get no automatic special privileges as a result. Admittedly, it does put you off dealing with requests where deleted material is involved, particularly as some requesters assume you are being stubborn when you have not undeleted something yourself... Fæ (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Malmanteau listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malmanteau. Since you had previously nominated the Malmanteau redirect for proposed deletion, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Uncle Dick (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS question/Sivaraman

Hi, how is this free when it's a derivative work of this? Regards Hekerui (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted!

Though the sketch appears, or is highly likely, to be based on the photograph, there appears sufficient originality for it not to be classed as a (blatant) derivative work in the legal sense. If it were, say, a posterized version of the photo (as might be done in photoshop) then I would either challenge the release with the uploader, reject the OTRS request or nominate for deletion discussion.

In this case, if you wish to pursue the matter, I suggest you nominate the file for deletion on this basis so that we can have a consensus. In the meantime I have added a notice to the image for information. Thank you for your diligence. Fæ (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I did what you suggested here. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Labshare

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for keeping this page so well-controlled vis a vis sockpuppeting, and generally moving the tone of conversation along. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On an aside, if you're anywhere near London in early September, I figure I owe you a beer or beverage of your choice. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been planning to get to one of the London meets - though in this case I know I'll be on a plane and then probably forced off the internet for a whole week! Luckily I'll still have my GPS enabled camera to play with, hopefully getting some reasonable shots of historic sites for Commons. Fæ (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Labshare

Fae,

I have sent you a private email. VladTheBusker (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Indian Ocean University

Thank you for taking the time to work OTRS; link to original discussion. I am away from my home computer for the next few weeks and would prefer not to log in to my admin account (check this account's userpage for confirmation of ownership), so I cannot see the deleted article at the moment. My deletion log from 06-29 indicates to me that I was almost certainly just working through Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations. I do not recall any other issues with that particular article, nor did I make any comment to the posting user to that effect. As with many copyright deletions, the content at <http://www.indianocuniver.com/Aboute%20Us.htm> is too promotional to be included directly in article space, but I would have no problem if you would like to userfy that content. Best regards, 2over0 public (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll double check and ask for userfication if the request still seems reasonable. At the moment the ball is in the requester's court, if they do not reply with a suggestion of where to add a release notice I'll just leave it closed. Fæ (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Etsushi Toyokawa

The heck? I was going to put in links to verify my additions. How long do we have to edit before the edits would be deleted without warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.204.1 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if the information appears unsourced it may be removed at any time. It's best make sure statements include a source at the same time you first save them to an article. If you are creating a long passage, you might consider drafting a version in your Sandbox first. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I need help in uploading a image to Wikipedia. It's a image from philthepower.com, I sent an email about it and they granted me permission to use it. What shall I do next? Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a note to your talk page. Fæ (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ignore the message on your talk page on commons. I uploaded the photo and it was deleted but I can't figure out why. What do I do with the email I got saying I have permission to use the image? Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can confidentially email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org along with your explanation, the name of the deleted file on Commons, the email from your friend as an attachment with a clear statement of the license from the copyright holder. If the information checks out okay then the file can be undeleted and marked with a ticket demonstrating that a suitable email has been verified. See the links already on your talk page for more information. Fæ (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my talk page

Hello, Fæ, thanks for the information about the editing and what not, especially with the special formatting to it, very nice of you to do that DarkXWeatherX (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting and you removing

Thanks for removing my note on Nick Boles. If it helps should I paste the screen shots of his grindr pages? Would that see off the threat of libel?TrueToryTroll (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of a previously posted fake version (see through the article history) that circulated on the internet. I'm afraid that if this is the one you mean then you are giving credit to an unsupported hoax. If you can find a reliable source to support Boles' use of Grindr then please discuss the sources on the article talk page, I would have no objection to the information if it is credibly sourced. Fæ (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken vandalism report

Hi! I think you mistakenly marked one of my edits as vandalism. It's probably because we're both using automated tools (you an GLOO, me on Huggle), but you actually ended up reverting my removal of vandalism on Central processing unit, and gave me a warning. Would you mind striking out or removing that warning? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. IGLOO does seem a little buggy every now and then (I am an occasional user as other tools don't run on Macs). Sorry about the slip up. Fæ (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my post

Hello I do not know why you removed my post. I created this page about Huda Sheikh who is an up and rising film star in bollywood. Please recheck the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hshaikh87 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are making claims about sources for what appears to be an attack article. You should use the {{hangon}} tag and add some reliable sources if you wish to improve the article (this does not include IMDB, which is not considered a useful sole source for articles as it may rely on user contributions). Fæ (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Madalyn Aslan

Hello. I saw your message about the new draft and closing the OTRS ticket. Does that mean any administrator can move the new draft to mainspace, or is there something more that needs to be done? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback from any other editor, I can copy the rewrite back to the article and see if that addresses the concerns raised. Fæ (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Truax field, Corpus Christi

I can't find why NAS Corpus Christi is named Truax Field. I was based there in the 80's, but can't remember. Military airfields are normally named for dead heroes. I figured if I posted that why it was named Truax had been forgotten, someone would post the reason. Instead you've twice pulled it down. Not very helpful. If you have another way to find the missing history of the name, go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.214.172 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to raise these sorts of questions please do so on the article talk page. The article itself is not the place for discussion, questions or original research. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Trident Media Guard

I have completed the translation of the article. I hope it is ok now. I am sorry I deleted the speedy deletion tag against your advise (too fast editing ;). Thank you for the heads up. --ColdWind (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you..

Why did you delete my edit to the article Bolton school? I was adding some critical information to the academics section? I think you must have reverted by accident. Please rerevert it back. 202.154.148.242 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to attract attention to your vandalism? This edit can not be justified. Fæ (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk pageVrenator (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

paul McVeigh

Hello ,Today I edited Paul's page for two reasons firstly you had him at 4 ft 8 inches tall when he is in fact 5ft 6-7inch Secondly you have him beating Sitenkov by Triangle arm bar but if you look at the finish and the move you will see it was not a triangle or an arm bar it was an improvised move that just happened and in my 15 years of training fighting and following MMA I had not seen anyone tapped out to this move so I have since heard from fighters at Paul's gym that he named the move Wanking the Zombie! I know its rude etc but at the end of the day he can call it whatever he likes and if you want to put an accurate record up its unfair to say he won by a move that he did'nt because in saying he won by an Armbar /Triangle you may as well say he won by knock out Cheers Gordon

P.S He was never choking Sitenkov either he was cranking his neck because his arm was not properly under his chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.181.233 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul McVeigh (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, you may be confusing my edit with someone else's. On this article my only change was a revert to remove "Wanking the Zombie" as an unsourced and probably defamatory nickname. If you wish to add such a nickname, reliable quality sources will be needed or it will be treated as vandalism. Fæ (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise Value

I hear you but the Enterprise Value page, with partial reversion of edits, is now left a mess. There is a reference section with no references in it. The categories bit at the bottom "Corporate finance" and "Investment banking" is repeated twice. There was some stuff in there on multiples (which are important in calculating EV) which is now completely deleted.

I was trying to fix all that up when you spotted what I was doing as vandalism. The way it looks now is definitely a lot worse than it did before I started cleaning it up!

What do you want to do next?

(86.142.6.51 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Rather than reverting further back in the article history, I suggest you continue to tidy the article. Again, there are plenty of non-commercial sources for definitions of EV and various calculations. Proprietary methods, less common examples and commercial links are highly likely to be removed or seen as spam (even if added in good faith). You may wish to use a named account rather than your anon IP address, this will make it easier for other editors to see the validity of your contribution history. See WP:BENEFITS. Fæ (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dragons, Dragons...

Have a look at my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon's Kingdom concerning the text in question.... Peridon (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look like some sort of clone. I would suspect an open source engine and the original design taken or ported from a classic (non-browser based) MUD from the 1990s. Hopefully some experienced gamer can enlighten us. The CC3 release is genuine, so it's a pity that it is unlikely to be notable based on your observations. Fæ (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman employed illegal immigrant/undocumented worker

this is a truth. the question is whether she knew the employee was illegal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenmd (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming someone as an illegal immigrant is considered controversial information about a living person, you must add reliable sources when making such claims. Without sources, such claims should be immediately removed in accordance with WP:BLP. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the source. a press conference in which the housekeeper announced to the public with her lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenmd (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I improved the link and formatted in a citation style without changing your text. Fæ (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Timeshare jobs

Hello Fæ. I am just letting you know that I deleted Timeshare jobs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It looked like link spam after the first para. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it probably should have been G11 as A7 was weak. Was a bit hasty in clicking the right button. Fæ (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Owen Wilson

Sorry for vandalizing, I saw somebody else was doing it, as they were doing it, and decided to add my little line. :( 64.90.84.103 (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

YOU WERE WARNED!

collapse PA

I warned you. I said that anyone to revert the Ashley Fisher page would receive a curse. I was serious. I have tracked your IP address, and found out your information, and now you and your family will endure much suffering. Do not take this as a joke. Expect the worse. 58.170.114.197 (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I am keeping it cool Fae. I am as cool as a cucumber. So you should just beware of my curse or you'll be eating your words and you will be a cucumber. A lebanese cucumber, short and stubby. Not a long continental cucumber. Thank you for your time. :) 58.170.114.197 (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Uncles

Howdy, I wanted to let you know I turned down your speedy deletion request for Steve Uncles. Since he is a candidate for office and unclear party functionary, I thought it did not meet the rather restrictive A7 criteria. It may however be deleted in AfD, but probably should be investigated. Thanks for all the work on Wikipedia! --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, political candidates are always a bit of a debating point as notability hinges on debatable press coverage. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kali (demon)

Well, anything related to satan/lucifer/Beelzebub is to beconsidered related to Kali: Kali (demon) ‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.146.110 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, these are quite different religious belief systems. Kali (the demon) is not equivalent to Satan and to imply so without supporting sources is misleading. Please stop adding the Kali (demon) article as a 'see also' link to unrelated articles unless you can find supporting (quality) reliable sources. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Hi there! I've archived your editor review as it has received a detailed review that will be of use to you. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not that useful this time, pity. Fæ (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear Fae The page on Hungry generation remain vandalized. If you want to see the correct page which remain untouched by vandals, you just visit the fullwiki page on the topic. I guess I have to correct the vandalized page myself, so that researchers are not misguided. Thanks. Tridib Mitra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridib Mitra (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD comment

Fæ, I'm so sorry that it sounded like my comment was a criticism of you. It wasn't what I meant. I've clarified this at the AfD. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not crushed by your comments (and good practice is probably to not reply and let it ride) but I felt I needed to respond after having been recently criticised for another AfD I raised. Fæ (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Reno / Peter Taylor (composer)

Hi, on 30 September you placed a CSD7 warning template on User talk:Studiostrooz. The CSD request template does not appear to show in the article history. Any ideas what happened? --Kudpung (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the page histories, it appears that I raised the user warning at 10.08 for the page Peter Reno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you examine the log, the page was then deleted within seconds by an admin at 10.08. The page was then recreated at 10.22 by the same user. To avoid any confusion (as my A7 speedy was effectively raised on a different page), I have removed the user warning from Studiostrooz's user talk page. Thanks for pointing out the apparent oddity. Fæ (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Medawar assessment

Hello Fae. Please do not read untoward annoyance into my response. I well appreciate the value and difficulty of your role. I also am not yet comfortable with all the tools, so I have responded to you "talk" in my space. I am not sure whether that was correct, so I now attach what I said here. I would appreciate your guidance on that point. I said:

Thank you for your assistance. Note that a neutral point of view is one thing; a refusal to engage in evaluation is another. If the remarks had been just an expression of my personal hero worship, I could understand your objections, but I supported the observations with citation both of Medawar's own works and the remarks of his alumni and a major current author in related genres. If this is not justified, then what is? JonRichfield (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Cheers, Jon

JonRichfield (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Very well, I shall reconsider that part of the entry. However, your remark about a respected academic was a bit peculiar; Dawkins is a respected academic; you surely did not think that he became a professor on the strength of his popular science books? And that web site is hardly a groupie lek. Oh, as for the re-entry of the text, that was not intended as an attempt to override you; I thought I had managed (as seems to have happened last night elsewhere) to enter two conflicting edits. It was only afterwards that I found the talk entry, which I immediately responded to. I am not silly enough to assume that if you had deleted the text once, you could never do it again! ;-) Go well, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Holly Stuckey

This encyclopedic material or daily news fodder?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to be sarcastic. The issues have been sufficiently discussed. I have no intention of debating the matter further. Fæ (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink removal in references

I'm not sure I understand this edit in which you removed the wikilinks in the titles of publications used in citations. I'm not aware of a guideline that precludes such links, and I often find them useful to demonstrate that the publication in question is notable in itself, which often provides better evidence of the notability of the topic at hand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The authorlink was duplicated from a link in the body and the publisher links gave the general impression that the article had references that could be verified by checking a URL, which is unfortunately not the case for any of the footnotes. It was this impression I was trying to correct. If a relevant internal link in a footnote can be replaced by a link in the article body or the See also section then this would be always preferred. The general guidelines are given at WP:OVERLINK as you probably know but they do not give a firm recommendation for this area. Fæ (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rash of user pages in main space

There appears to be an IT class of some sort going on in India using Wikipedia. I userfied the articles you tagged and ran across another one. There will probably be more, so you might want to userfy them instead of tagging them for deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a handy script to userfy in this situation? Oh, BTW I'm no admin so I cannot delete the original page, only leave a redirect or another db tag, so this may not save much work. Fæ (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And possibly another class in Bangladesh. Today seems to be Wikipedia in the classroom day. There's no script that I'm aware of. You will have to tag the redirect after the move, so it does leave more work for you to do along with some admin, but with apparently a class being taught, it might be better to give them a little slack. The students were probably wrongly told to create an article about themselves. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indra shann

Hi, I was just reading the Indra shann biography and couldn't see anything that make it meet notability criteria. I hope you dont mind my changing the tags you recently placed to speedy delete / notability (I strongly suspect the article is autobiographical). If you think there is a chance it may merit inclusion, I'm happy to be overruled. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I want to over-rule you but I was concerned that the mentioned "two award-winning gardens" at the Chelsea Flower Show might address notability (hence not re-doing my early PROD). However I have been unable to find any links about awards in news articles relating to his name. Fæ (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jacques-Edouard Berger Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Fæ,

Thanks a lot for your message and concern. Indeed I am part of the Foundation's team and it is in agreement with all of us, that the page has been created. So we assure that there is no conflict of interest. On the other hand our goal is not to promote the foundation through Wikipedia (your guidelines are pretty clear on this issue). We would like to add the page, since the one on René Berger exists on the English version of Wikipedia (matter of relevance). The official website is also French-English, and we get a great deal of requests from art amateurs of professionals throughout the world (proven by statitics and external/academic participations). Finally, French may not be the easiest language for all interested individuals, so an entry on the English Wikipedia would be most welcome! Concerning notability, I just started the page and would like to add more which will be done in a close future. Should there be any disapprouval or suggestions, your remarks will be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, --Aline Debusigne (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take time to check the links to guidance for conflict of interest and notability already added to your talk page. In essence you are promoting your website and do have a conflict of interest even if there are no direct commercial issues. You may find it helpful to consider a biographical article on Berger rather than a direct article on the Foundation. For advice on editing in your situation, you might find it useful to add a request on WP:COIN. Fæ (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Messy Edits

Sorry for the messy edits! I was trying to find a way to make a draft page as well. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuaYT (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I am Phil Packer's web master and I am updating the wiki page on his behalf...why do you keep undoing my work. This is extremely important to us and need you to stop this action. The information already there, you are reverting back to is infact wrong and a very serious security risk to Mr Packer. Stop reverting our updates or explain why you wish to undo them and have incorrect information on Phil Packer

Rory Quirke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirkie33 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are security issues please raise them for attention at WP:ANI or contact the Oversight team in confidence. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kitten

PhilKnight has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

A box of WikiLove kittens waiting to be templated.

Thanks, I'll put it in the box with the others. ;) Fæ (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mattyleg's Outremont Edit

Hi there, I'm new here, as you know, and I noticed that you reverted the edit I made to the Outremont, Quebec article. The reason I removed that paragraph is because I didn't think that a list of recent crimes in the area was appropriate for the article. Perhaps a new article about crime in the borough would be more appropriate. I was also dissatisfied with the biased tone of the paragraph. It seemed to me that the paragraph had been written with some ulterior motive (that I can't think of). Thanks, Mattyleg (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your change can be seen here. You removed a fairly large and well-cited paragraph without discussion or any edit comment. If you wish to pursue the change then I suggest you propose your change on the article talk page for feedback first. Superficially it appears to be taking negative material out of the article unnecessarily and so needs some justification first. If crime is an issue for the area then this sort of material with associated sources seems quite relevant to me, though not being a resident or having any other connection to Outremont I have no strong opinions on the matter. Fæ (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see later discussion at Talk:Outremont, Quebec. Fæ (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Philipp & Associates Corp.

Well spotted as a hoax. I have noticed a very odd thing about this: four IPs contributed to it, adding text, removing PRODs or db tags, adding HPAC to lists of banks:

• 80.190.200.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 62.2.182.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 87.236.194.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.145.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All four have also edited the article Bodo Sperling or its talk page, or added Sperling to lists, or joined in a BLP/N discussion about him. I have no idea what to make of that: his bio doesn't read as though making up a fake bank as a "conceptual art" project would be his style, but I have difficulty thinking of another explanation. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, could be conceptual art, there have been some fairly outré "installations" over the last few years. However you list four IPs in four different European countries, the only connection being "IP address registrar: BOGUS" shown in the dnsstuff search. This seems no co-incidence but an indicator that this is someone quite sophisticated when it comes to hiding their identity.

The only other area not discussed as motivation was the website itself being used to support other trojan identities for the charity mentioned. When I Googled the charity the faux bank claimed to support, it was real but had a special sub-page warning the public to be aware of scams using their identity. For such a scam to work, the bank might have only been used as reference site making, say, emails from that domain asking for supporting donations to a Paypal link for the charity (superficially) appear plausible. Anyway, not sure I want to spend days investigating and reporting such a scam; hopefully the fact of our discussion being permanently logged in an AfD and so popping up in future Google searches might help a few people avoid falling for it. Fæ (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

IP warnings and IGLOO

Hi there. I'm not sure how Igloo works and if this is it or you, but I wanted to divert your attention to User talk:173.226.173.71, where you gave someone well into warnings for the month an unduly gentle level 1 warning, refreshing the count and delaying his inevitable block. These kinds of things, and I don't think anything tragic or overly damaging resulted from this, it's more of an FYI thing, since I know IGLOO is in alpha. Enjoy, Sven Manguard _Talk 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be an area to discuss on the IGLOO talk page, however you should note that the more commonly used Twinkle works in exactly the same way in that both my uw1's were 10 or more days after the last user warning. With Anon IPs I believe that the convention is that if warnings are more than 7 days old they probably should be ignored in terms of uw counts (excepting long term patterns) as there is no guarantee that this is the same person editing from this address. It's been a long time since I read through the vandalism fighting guidelines, however I distinctly recall being given this advice from a admin a long time ago when I was jumping to giving a uw4 when the uw3 was more than a week old.

If you find some guidelines that conflict with my understanding please do point them out for my homework :) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you know better than I. I have been doing it where the IP or user gets one warning of each level per month, culminating with the fifth incident getting reported and warned with a second level 4 warning. (I found this somewhat silly in cases where vandals work their way up to level 3 at the end of the month and get a fresh new level 1 warning on the first day of the next month, but I didn't know any better, as I learned the trade by pure observation.) Sorry if I got it wrong, your way makes more sense but takes more work. That being said, I'll give it a try your way and see where the rabbit hole goes. Thanks for the education, and keep up the good work. Sven Manguard _Talk 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit of background thinking takes me to Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction, though it should be noted that the documentation for uw's is a bit circular. The guidance seems to set no firm rules but basically advises to AGF where possible by reverting to a low uw level if there can be any doubt that this is the same person making apparent vandalism edits. Consequently I think the 7-day guideline is okay as a rough rule of thumb but your judgement can and should take priority. For example if someone is making similar characteristic abusive comments to the same article, then even if this were separated by several weeks I'd say there is no breach of AGF by assuming it is the same vandal and escalate accordingly. Personally, if vandalism were to be more than a month apart, I would probably add a bit of an explanatory note to ensure there was no misunderstanding and any later blocking admin can understand the logic of what went on. Fæ (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read that when I have time. Technically I'm at work right now and the boss just came back, so I have to go, but your paragraphs of advice have been a welcome change from the usual "help" people give newer users (one line of text with a link to some policy or just the link). Sven Manguard _Talk 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Attack!

Hi. Thanks for tagging new pages, but Top 100 terrorists was tagged by you as A7. This should have been tagged as {{db-attack}}, since it clearly singled out one guy to disparage him! Err on the side of caution if the content looks inflammatory toward a person/group/thing.

Otherwise, thanks again. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, though killing 10 mosquitoes with one hand is not that particularly disparaging as a description of the terrorism involved. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seemed to make fun of the guy. Who knows. Why can't these people just go do something constructive? :) — Timneu22 · talk 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my talk page. I'd've probably responded if I found it first, and well, just because I have troll snacks doesn't mean I should give them out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Considering the rather nasty use of the c-word, probably better to not respond directly. Fæ (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, that editor's rather off view of reality (I don't have the power to enact non-existant blocks... Do I?). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He he, just went back in time to re-read it, classic rant. I had actually missed half the swearing on my first skim through. As you say, probably not quite the same reality that Wikipedia tries to exist within. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User 217.206.212.92

Hi,

I'm a little new at this Wiki stuff, but I recently undid the edit that User 217.206.212.92 did on the Muse article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muse_(band)&oldid=390271695

Now, i'm not sure if I should leave a message on his talk page, since he's already been warned about this article, among others. Since you're the last one to have warned him, do you think you could give me a clue on what to do, or do it for me? Thanks,

PatrickAnimi —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickAnimi (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given a (final) warning for that edit as it was unarguably blatant vandalism. The general guidelines for this sort of thing are at VANDALISM and if you don't already use it TWINKLE is the ideal tool to use, though you may want to build up your experience a little before issuing user warnings. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see

Please see here for an interesting essay. Mootros (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Just added a bit of a break in the discussion. I can understand why some might find such a process frustrating, though I would firmly support a full lock of the article (if needed) for, say, a week, in order to give time for such a consensus to evolve. It is pretty hard to stay annoyed at a computer screen for a week :) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you annoyed? I don't understand what you are on about? Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to either of us. Only the threat to edit in advance of consensus by RR which appears intemperate. The Shamir article is something that seems a bit of a difficult (and maybe depressing) topic to cover. I'll slow down my contributions to the talk page a bit (once a day would probably be enough) as the discussion has become a bit heated. I'm hoping to be seen as neutral, particularly as I'm not looking to edit the article myself or 'win' any arguments.

If you feel my proposal is unhelpful I would rather withdraw from the article and leave the resolution to your discretion as an experienced editor. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, although I don't think there was a need to break the discussion .. your contributions are valuable and I hope you can continue to stay in the loop .. this issue is perhaps the focal point and consensus in needed. I would rather drop out and allow you to continue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how it was created... totally attacking, weakly cited and POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&diff=378446241&oldid=378432813 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Style-radius

Template:Style-radius has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks Fæ (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist sex abuse cases

Thread was subject to WQA notice, user now has an indef block for abusive comments.

I contributed this article which has now been deleted following your tag (but which I was unaware of until I noticed the page had been deleted). Why didn't you contact me on my talk page to say you had tagged the article for deletion? In the discussion page I had made it clear that I was the contributing editor and had had faithfully addressed the only issues raised concerning Ole Nydahl. As things stand an article I contributed in good faith and had spent a lot of time on has been deleted without my ever being able to respond to the issues raised, which appear mostly to centre around a naive belief that sexual relationships must necessarily be criminal to be abusive. But sexual relations between a teacher and student are always held to be abusive. See the wiki entry here. I have requested the page be restored here and I ask you to restore the page yourself. Rinpoche (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Rinpoche, you may have misunderstood what I can do or what I did. Some points about this page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 15 seems an extensive discussion where you are free to air your views and have already had some good (and some rather robust) feedback from some experienced editors and admins. This is the correct place to ask for the deletion to be overturned if you have a case. It may also be possible to ask for a copy to be userfied (or emailed to you) if you wish to create or draft a different article based on similar content at some future date. I do not have the authority to undelete articles or delete them as I am not an admin. As far as I recall I repeatedly attempted to remove some poorly sourced information from the page and then raised it to WP:BLPN (to avoid edit-warring) for someone independent to take a look at what I considered inappropriate material against the BLP guidelines. Shortly after, one of the BLPN folks must have put the page up for speedy deletion on BLP grounds or deleted it outright on their own (admin) authority. In summary, you are doing the right thing by challenging the deletion at DRV and if you believe that a similar (but better sourced) article would be encyclopaedic then I suggest you ask for userfication (including the article talk page) so that you can research, re-write and then get review feedback before re-issuing an article. Take a deep breath (try some calming tea). I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I'm already replying to the points raised in that forum. I don't agree at all they're robust, rather or otherwise. I find them naive and confused. I don't need a nice cup of tea and a sitdown thank you. I don't need to take a deep breath. I don't find you helpful and in the circumstances I disbelieve you hope you're being helpful. Rather I would like you to explain why you didn't notify me as the main contributer that you had flagged my article for deletion, why the template wasn't maintained on the page so I could see it when I checked it (and I was checking it daily because of the entirely uncontroversial Ole Nydahl material being deleted) and come to that why you didn't respond to my invitation to discuss the issues when I reverted the deletion you say you made. Each time I made a reversion I noted it on the discussion page. In short why I wasn't allowed to participate in the debate and why you didn't respond to my invitation to debate your concerns. Do feel free to ponder these weighty concerns over a cup of tea whatever or otherwise but I would like a response. Rinpoche (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry if my last reply was not clear. I did not flag the article for deletion, I raised it for discussion on WP:BLPN. I have no access to deleted versions of articles, but you can ask an admin to check deleted versions if you have good cause. The point of having a watchlist is that a change to articles you are interested in is automatically flagged on your watchlist or even an RSS feed for use in other applications when not logged in. There is no convention to expect to be notified about a deletion template being added to an article if you are not the article creator, you are instead expected to pick this up on your own watchlist. You are free to continue disbelieving anything I say, but you should be aware that good practice on Wikipedia is to assume good faith whenever there is possible doubt. As you have stated you find me unhelpful, I suggest you seek any further help you need from someone else as attempting to help you does not seem a good use of my time or yours. You may want to try the WP:HELPDESK as a starting point. Fæ (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) THank you. I'm glad I'm free to do something on Wikipedia and I do disbleieve you. As it happened I ticked both the watch box and had a RSS feed on it with Google Reader (though in fact the facility for an RSS feed has been withdrawn on GR and you have to use some other recommended procedure I did implement). I still didn't pick it up. I was the article creator and there is a convention of informing the article creator about a deletion template. Why didn't you extend that courtesy? Why didn't you discuss the issues as I invited you to on the discussion page? Rinpoche (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I use Twinkle to flag articles for speedy, PROD or AfD deletion. This automatically notifies contributors. As I did not flag the article for deletion this never happened. Should you need to have this explained to you in more detail I suggest you try the links above as previously suggested. As you have stated twice that you disbelieve me I shall not be answering any more of your questions here. Bye. Fæ (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The BLPN thread begins with this from you After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC) However you spin it, it was you who initiated this process and you did not extend me the courtesy of informing me. I did not revert any deletion of yours in your account name unless it was an IP deletion or from another account and for each reversion I made I noted in the edit summary that I had referred to it on the talk page and there gave my reasons and asked for dialogue. If I had seen your concerns I would have noted first of all that unambiguous definition of terms is not common in discourses and in any case I began the article with a clear description of what was meant by 'abuse' in the context of the article. Even in the drafting of legislation where great care is taken to be unambiguous there is nevertheless a need to leave some terms undefined: for example 'nation' in EU leglislation, 'indecent' in UK criminal legislation (in the context of child protection) - the examples are legion. In any case it is perfectly well understood what abusive sexual behaviour amounts to and abusive behaviour need not be criminal. In particular teacher-student sexual relationships are universally regarded as abusive on the part of the teacher. The selection criteria was mentioned in the article - that the individuals involved had founded Buddhist groups at the forefront of the emerging Western Buddhist movement. I continue to disbelieve your good faith. Good or bad I think you are both simple and contemptible. I wish you no good will whatsoever and I expressly do not wish you goodbye. Rinpoche (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Q

I left a question for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Plaza Mall. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response and for that useful link. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

You forgot to add the fair use rationale to File:It Gets Better.png a few hours ago. I expect that it qualifies, but the rationale still needs to be there. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne on the main page

Hi, November 18 is the find-date for the Hoxne Hoard. I was going to nominate it for the main page then at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, which can't be done until 30 days before, till I realized that if it's the nominator's first time on the main page you get an extra point, which I won't get. Could you do it? Without research, I see it able to claim: date 1, contrib 1, diversity 1, mp rep 2 = 5, which should be enough. The last 2 or 3 depend on it being regarded as Roman & archaeological rather than as BM, but I think that is only right. There's no rush, as it can't be done until the 19th or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I'll investigate over the next day or two as a first timer. I've been distracted by OTRS and dealing with vandalism for quite some time, so I could do with being dragged back into the light for slightly less gnomic contributions. Fæ (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

NB, the article states a find-date of November 16th. Draft started at User:Fæ/tfar. Now raised at WP:TFAR. Fæ (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

please help

Extended content

I wrote that unconstructive article in order to know who is administer. I want to talk to administer very sorry! Korea Wikipedia (Ko.wikipedia.org) administer acted regarded WIKI as their private belongings! They bans all the accounts if an user wrote critical thread to them. PLEASE BAN THEM ALL AND GIVE BACK ALL THE KOREANS THE WIKIPEDIA!!! Ko.wikipedia.org (Wikipedia in Korean) is very crucially damaged due to korean administer. It is considered that Korea Goverment employed them and enforced to delete every thread that has somewhat opposite point of view with korea goverment regardless of contents of thread. I wrote a thread, that the goverment might want to delete. and my account was just banned. Korean Administer didn't explain anything that is related to my ban. They just banned. they banned my account for 1 months just my thread is against to goverment although my thread is just based on only FACTS. I see that the thread of "LEE MYUNG BAK" (president of REPUBLIC OF KOREA, my country) is modified. all things that is critics of him is delected. and just positive explanation is remained which is written by supporters of Lee Myung Bak (The president of Korea) Administer, please contact me. please reply my account. Korean goverment tried to control internet, and they acted a "media law" that intended to censor all the contents in internet. I'm sure that in several months, all the threads that goverment doesn't like will be delected by Korean administer employed by goverment. please help me. In korea, television media has been already controlled by goverment. please. please. Korea is a democratic country. I want my country Korea to remain democratic... please. If Wiki will be controlled depending on goverment's view point, all the internet world in korea will be censored by dictator Lee Myung Bak... Internet world of korea will resemble just that of CHINA OR IRAN OR NORTH KOREA... I'm sure that Wiki want all the internet world to be free. Plu98 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Tune article up for deletion

I recently saw your request for deletion for the "Maximum Tune" article. I agree to the extent that it does not meet standards; however, I have written on the article's talk page that I oppose to the request. I hope more users will take notice of it, and hopefully come together and cleanup the article. Anime4international (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you take a look at the Proposed deletion guidelines you can see that if you feel the article should not be deleted this way (without a formal discussion) then you can simply remove the PROD notice yourself. If you make no move to remove the PROD it will be assumed that there is no reasonable objection to deletion. The Articles for deletion process is quite different as it involves a discussion with many editors and for that reason those templates should not be removed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. Thanks for the clarification. I've just started taking interest in editing articles, and still taking a look at the policies on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the help. Anime4international (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shared stioupid adress

Hello,
This is copy of the post I just left on u:Roleplayer talkpage. Thanks to you, as well and Apologize again.
Following to your posts Fæ (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) and ^player 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This url seems in fact to be a shared adress, as I (u:Kikuyu3) didnot connect on said date. Moreover, when I pay humor on this site, I avoid such subjects, as I am not fluent enough in english.
Anyhow, I apologize in the name of the stioupid colleague whom I don't know the identity, hoooopefully for his stioupid face ! Best regards to all the contributors. Hop ! 85.158.138.21 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (=Kikuyu3) This just to confirm. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(The above message appears to relate to the addition of {{SharedIPCORP}} to the IP user talk page. Obviously it is possible that multiple users might have connected at similar times, the notice there advises them to register for the benefits of editing from a named account as Kikuyu3 already has.) Fæ (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit blocking

Hello. PM800 gave me a final warning even if I didn't edit anymore the Dookie page. Why am I the one who is being blocked? Wikipedia isn't quite fair!--Revilal90 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Condover Primary School

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Condover Primary School, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. I appreciate the Search engine test rationale but apart from appearing in school listings I'm not spotting anything to address the GNG requirement. As you suggest I'll consider for deletion discussion though I expect the end result would be the merge you mentioned on the article talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Vertott's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI :) Kudpung (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicely expressed, thanks. WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NHS and WP:UNIGUIDE is hard to explain and darn hard to get to grips with for any contributor. Fæ (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my page Vrenator (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinpoche

Hi. I was just looking over all this and catching up and was about to say to you that I didn't think Rinpoche was remotely interested in dispute resolution when I saw he had, quite rightly in my view, been indef blocked. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just writing a thank you note to Fram for taking action. I am wondering if I should now raise a MfD on the user page as a breach of USERPAGE? Fæ (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD on User:Rinpoche raised after re-reading, seems like the most sensible thing to do as blanking it myself would not be appropriate. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the most offensive stuff was removed already but it's still an attack page really.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

B&Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Collapse discussion from blocked user.

Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page B&Q have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. wow in less than 3 mins you have spoken to Sussex police and read the crime report on Mr James Priestman and his brother Neil, exactly what part of my edit is misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin slauter (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Your edit (diff) added an allegation of racism against the company without any reliable sources. If you re-add the claim with appropriate sources to, say, newspaper reports and the involvement of Sussex police, then your addition would be welcome. Please refer to WP:Verifiability. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I thought wiki was about facts not company propaganda, obviously your censorship of the truth behind B&Q Kingfisher is going to make my exposure of their racist and other illegal activities harder, but I always liked a challenge. Also miss Fae if your employer B&Q doesn't like the truth about their company being exposed they could Sue me, that way when lose people like you would be out of a job. Thank you for taking the time to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin slauter (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You may find WP:Truth and WP:NOTCENSORED helpful. If you meant to call me "loose" in the sense of "a loose woman", please refer to WP:No personal attacks. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

confused

i'm the source of information i want to post - first hand witness....why are you not allowing updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.136.211 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the verifiability policy. We do not doubt your testimony but facts in article about a living person must be verifiable and from a reliable source. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of ships

Re this edit, it is a long held convention at WP:SHIPS that ships are inherently notable and thus can sustain a stand-alone article. Very few ship articles get deleted, see WP:SHIPS/AFD. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The outcomes list of AFDs is helpful and pretty convincing. I note however that there does not appear to be a firm consensus (i.e. a specific notability guideline), though I agree that any sizeable ship is almost certain to be notable. My concern in this case was that a ship described as a "ferry" might not be obviously notable (I'm thinking of all those small ferries shuttling about in minor locations, such as across freshwater lakes). In this particular case I'm happy to say the article was improved to the extent that notability is pretty much a non-issue. Should I come across a doubtful ship-related article again I'll try to remember to use your handy link and raise the matter for discussion and possible article improvement on the project talk page. Thanks for the feedback, Fæ (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, ocean-going vessels will be notable. Yachts, boats, etc are assessed on a case-by-case basis - Maud (wherry) and its associated AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take your summary as a rule of thumb and would be happy to question particular articles for which there would be any doubt on the project page (or at least the article talk page) first. I would have expected ocean-going vessels to appear on an international register, this along with being a certain registered "class" would give a threshold where notability was indisputable. As I have no expertise in this area I'll not be pursuing the concept. By the way, I would have no problem if you want to chip in with suggestions when I apply templates or notices that you feel might be misjudged in the future. I am always prepared to admit I was mistaken and withdraw such a process if there is any doubt. Fæ (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about ships being registered. Re your suggestion, I'm not going to stalk your edits - I'm sure there's no need for that. We all make mistakes occasionally (My latest!). If I happen to spot something then I will let you know, but that's as far as it goes. Best, Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Eric Durchholz

Hi Fæ - I looked over the article and it's history... and I checked to see if there are any new sources, but didn't find anything else that I thought should be included. In general, I'd like to see inline citations in all paragraphs of all articles; there are no inline citations in this article's para 3 or 4. Not good. Four of his books show up at amazon so he appears to be a legit published author. I agree that the refs are an issue in so far as WP:AUTHOR is concerned. I think the notability maintenance tag might be a way to go, plus addressing issues on the Talk page (Just noticed that I was mentioned by name on the Talk page; don't know that I deserve such praise!) I'm not sure how this article would fare at AfD. The article creator, Michaelh has been around for awhile and seems to be levelheaded; he has sought me out on a few occasions regarding assistance on various articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, I'll add a notability tag and an accompanying note on the talk page for any watchers. I'll reconsider for a wider deletion discussion depending on how that goes first. Thanks for your thoughts, Fæ (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Blocked

Why am I edit blocked? I didn't edit the Dookie page anymore! Wikipedia is unfai. PM800 didn't post any source for alternative rock and now I'm blocked because I just deleted things that are uncorrect. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revilal90 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for 24 hours, which does not seem too unbearable (as it already expired). I suggest you follow the advice already given on your talk page. As the reason for being blocked seems primarily to relate to edit-warring on the same article, I strongly recommend you avoid editing Dookie directly for at least a few weeks and instead put forward your rationale for changes on the talk page. Note that as it is a featured article, many editors will be keeping an eye on it and take a very literal stance on verifiability requirements. Note that should you create the same issues again, you are likely to be blocked for a much longer period, possibly indefinitely. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AMOC Senior Contest

Please Help

I do not know why my page AMOC Senior Contest was deleted. This is actually an important mathematics competition and I would like others to see its importance and contribute to this article by expanding it. Please Help, 890F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 890F (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• AMOC Senior Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per the notice on your page, you are free to ask an admin to userfy the page (I'm not an admin) which means that you can have a draft version to continue working on. As it was, there was no independent reliable source that unambiguously demonstrated notability in order to satisfy the guidelines of WP:CLUB. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at MJ94's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Artefact, not Artifact

Sorry, that was one British spelling I hadn't encountered beforeBusaccsb (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir, thank you for cleaning up the vandalism on the page I created Joe Bruin.

Cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I love your parentheses

How apt! How gloriously ironic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dud3

did you mean to created this page with just the tag?TalkToMe_c^intelati 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the lag in the time from seeing the page and the Twinkle script finishing running on the page was long enough for the page to be deleted just in the same moment. Rarely happens so it seems bizarre, but always possible. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. :) always here to help.--TalkToMe_c^intelati 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Plymouth

I don't understand this. Your edit summary comment is, This discussion did not start as a "Poll", please do not rename it after contributions are established. See WP:RTP.

The discussion did start as a poll, it just didn't have that section heading. When the discussion at the bottom got really long, I separated it from the poll with a "Discussion" subheading. Then I realized that people naturally scroll to the bottom of the section they edit to add their vote, so I added the "Poll" subheading to make it easier (you edit that section and scroll to the bottom to vote).

Per WP:RTP this is a very minor "resectioning" done carefully only to make it easier for everyone to participate in accordance with what it says:

In some cases, discussion should be broken down into new sections or subsections. This is useful when a section becomes overly long, or when conversation begins to diverge into a number of separate points. Resectioning may help both readers and participants understand the flow of the discussion and help them find relevant parts of the text. ... Discussions that cover multiple points or become more complex, by contrast, may benefit from the creation of subsections to address different points, or in extreme cases by splitting off sections of text into entirely new sections.

So I don't understand your objection. Since you removed the Poll subheading, right now if someone clicks on the Propose Move tag, then clicks edit and scrolls all the way down, they will be voting in the Discussion subsection. By adding the Poll subheading back, it will be resectioned into a traditional poll/discussion formation, and easy to use and follow. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please look at WP:POLL which explains why discussions are not polls and consequently why such a title fails the RTP guidelines as it misrepresents existing discussion.

This early version of the page shows the title or move proposal text did not call it a poll. Move proposals are discussed, they are not ballots. I note however you refer to a "traditional" poll/discussion formation, is there a guideline for move proposals that you are referring to?

I can see no benefit of separating the short paragraph of proposal from the several pages of discussion that follow, if you must add a subsection then something like "Discussion" would be better and rename the section currently with that title to "Process discussion". Very long discussions sometimes have arbitrary breaks as titles but they are not always recommended. Fæ (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just an arbitrary word. Hopefully "Survey" is less problematic for you. If it is, please change it to whatever you like (just not "Discussion" because that's what I named the other section, unless you want to rename that too) instead of just deleting the very helpful subheading again. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Take time to read WP:POLL. Words such as ballot, vote, poll and survey are considered loaded terms and may be considered an attempt to by-pass the consensus process. Fæ (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Kevin's College, Melbourne

Hi

I am mentioned in the St. Kevin's College Toorak page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Kevin's_College,_Melbourne

under science and medicine.

Science and Medicine Dr Chris Wright Director of the intensive care unit at Monash Medical Centre, also an associate professor of medicine at Monash University[citation needed]

I think (apologies if I am in error) that you may have added or edited the "citation needed".

What's required?

I am an Associate Professor at Monash University, and I was the Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Monash Medical Centre. I have been appointed to a full time academic position at the University.

I really don't care if I am on the SKC page or not!

Thanks for your advice

Chris Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.132.121 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• St. Kevin's College, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thanks for leaving a note. The line was marked as needing a citation as it requires a reliable source to demonstrate that you are an alumnus and that you are notable for the claims on the page about you. If there were, say, a University profile page that mentions SKC, this would be sufficient to be added as a footnote and address the guidelines (WP:NLIST). Fæ (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Moro (chocolate bar)

Hello. I'd forgotten I'd even edited that page, to be honest! I think I'm right in saying that back in 2006 there wasn't a clearly-defined way to tag that sort of photo, so I just stuck PD on to make it clear that I wasn't claiming any rights. Of course I'll happily change to a more appropriate tag for the photo I took - but which should it be, FUR or text-logo? I'd be inclined to say the first, since it's not only the logo that's shown. Loganberry (Talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FUR would do it, though text-logo is sufficient but probably challenge-able. Fæ (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jim Lemley photo

Permission was granted via email. I re-uploaded the file. & to answer your comment on all rights being reserved; fair use overrides that. However, it is Wikipedia policy to not allow for fair use interpretation of the law. There is a big difference between Wikipedia policy and the law. My source: I am a paralegal for an entertainment law firm. Veritasenlumine (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are in agreement per my article talk page comments. Looking at File:Jim-Lemley-pic-1.jpg you need to follow the Commons:OTRS process (i.e. copying your email to Wikipedia/Commons for verification), this gives a ticket reference so that everyone can see it was real, not just made up by an anonymous user.

Please use the OTRS process and add an Commons:template:OTRS pending template in order to avoid the photo being tagged for deletion again. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I redact my information, because I don't want people to see my email. If this is an issue, I will seek a photo without copyright. Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have posted your email somewhere by accident you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT who will suppress details when reasonable.

If you are referring to the OTRS process, you need not worry as the point of that process is that any information you email to them will be kept as a confidential verifiable record but not be published in the public domain (just given an anonymous ticket number showing it was verified when received). If you redact basic information then it might be rejected (I'm not 100% sure about this, it may be worth sending in a redacted version and asking them; after all what matters is the copyright holder details are credible rather than yours). The OTRS guidance above explains it better than I can. Note, I'm not an admin or bureaucrat so I have no authority to do such things and the folks who join and administer the OTRS scheme are quite rigorously vetted. Fæ (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a note to the image about this thread, please do not forget to add the OTRS pending and delete my notice on the image page once you have emailed in. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble, because I want to send over the email to OTRS, but I can't find where to do that. Could you help to send me the address so that I may forward the email to them? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See this page on Commons. The email address is written in the declaration of consent box. Take your time as it can take ages for OTRS to process tickets so you really want to get it right first time. Fæ (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so lastly, does the photo need to be removed, pending OTRS response? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be okay now. Based on the chat here I have added the right template for OTRS pending and removed the unsourced tag. If OTRS has received and eventually accepts your email there should be nothing more to do. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Northern Club (Auckland)

Hi Fae - thanks for taking a look at The Northern Club (Auckland) - you tagged it for speedy deletion within nano-seconds of its first preview; we've got a few more details in place now (and will contine to build the page) - would be great if you could remove the speedy deltion tag. Thanks Rob.

Plymouth

Hi. This is a chaotic mess isn't it. I've even been insulted and accused of operating a Brit cabal! Talk about gaming the system! I've done what I can at Talk:Plymouth and totalled up the !votes with the possibility that the consensus is even stronger if one reads closely the comments that are not preceded by a declaration in bold type. I can't close it myself because I'm involved and I'm not an admin, so I've asked a neutral uninvolved admin if he or another one can come in and close it formally for us. I'll mov on now and see what's happened at the others. I think Floydian just does not know his way around Wikipedia policy yet, but if there are any more personal attacks from the purple one, it will be the first time I've ever sent someone to go and wait outside the headmaster's door.--Kudpung (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been steering clear somewhat, the discussions being a bit circular, tendentious and more than a little disruptive. However you may wish to look at my last comment at Talk:Dover where a similar move request is winding down and I have added some relevant context. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Autodesk Toxik

Fæ, I noticed you marked Autodesk Toxik as not being notable. I added three more third party sources. Is this enough, or would you like me to track down more? Thanks, Matthewrbowker (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The main relevant notability guideline is WP:PRODUCT which relies on the criteria of WP:GNG. Consequently there must be evidence that the product itself is notable independent of the notability of the producing company. Taking the 3 new sources added one at a time:

1. http://macanimationpro.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=174488 - This is a review by Maruyama based on a forthcoming product/sales presentation given at toxik2008. As a standard product review it does little to establish notability.
2. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20091022006771/en/Autodesk-Launches-Autodesk-Toxik-2008-Software-Feature - This appears to be a press release by Autodesk, Inc, it would not be suitable as an independent source.
3. http://resources.autodesk.com/med/Autodesk_Toxik - This is a support notice on the manufacturer's website which adds little for evidence of notability.

Based on these new sources, the improvement notice should stay and the fact that you have researched the article indicates that the 'significant impact' needed to demonstrate notability is unlikely to be found in the near future. Perhaps you should consider performing the suggested article merge? Fæ (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deletion notices on Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca pages

You have tagged for deletion two articles I wrote, and I request that you remove these deletion tags for the following reasons. Perhaps your idea of what makes a lawyer notable may normally be accurate, but it is incorrect when applied to Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca because of the specific type of work they do (plaintiffs-oriented class action). Plaintiff’s lawyers have been identified as the most influential players in this type of litigation, and disproportionately so. The Supreme Court pointed this out in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit. Congress had occasion to say so, too (See the House of Representatives Conference Report. No. 104-369). And finally, The guide for judges on the subject even says, “Attorneys representing classes are in a position to control the litigation process far more than attorneys representing individual clients” (see http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ClassGde.pdf/$file/ClassGde.pdf). This is exactly the kind of work that Mr. Cuneo and Mr. LaDuca have become prominent for doing.

Furthermore, a great deal is said about Mr. Cuneo and Mr. LaDuca aside from the prominent cases they worked on. Mr. Cuneo worked as part of President Carter’s Federal Trade Commission and the United States Congress. Together, he and Mr. LaDuca have represented millions of clients in some of the farthest-reaching pro-consumer litigation currently happening. I can speak from experience that the millions of people they have personally represented, as well as law students who study this area of law, would consider them notable.

Therefore, I would say that the reason cited in the original deletion tags is simply inaccurate in this case. I ask that you please remove them promptly. If the tags are not removed by November 5, I will remove them.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TapFwdLaw (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles about lawyers are often problematic. Being part of a team of lawyers involved in notable cases does not necessarily confer notability on all or any members of such legal teams and lawyers tend to have many public records with their names on but this does not necessarily provide sources to demonstrate significant impact outside of their field (press interest in the individual rather than just the legal cases would be needed). These particular examples have the additional issue of appearing to be in the format of résumés (including large amounts of career detail rather than sticking to personal significant impact on the historic record) which along with an apparent unresolved conflict of interest is a red flag for reviewers. Though there is a string of notable legal cases in these articles, it is not readily apparent that the named lawyer was either the sole named representative or that their company was the sole agency involved. There may be a debate to be had for each article but I do not see that WP:BIO has been unambiguously addressed, would you prefer I escalate to AfD (see WP:DELETE) which gives the opportunity for wide community discussion? Fæ (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Jacquelyn Ottman

Hey Fae- I have added a bunch of new sources- can you reverse your "weak delete?" Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green31569 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at all the sources as examining an initial random sample of 3 (out of 11) they were unsuitable being an interview with the subject, an advert for a book and an article that appears co-written by the subject, consequently all failed to be independent. I should have more time in a few hours and will give some feedback unless there is a key source that is strong enough for me to change my opinion in the AfD. Note, I may upgrade my opinion to a full delete if these sources are inadequate as there should be a reasonable expectation of addressing notability in the near future in order to retain a biography article (as per WP:BIO). Fæ (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Copy of feedback left on article talk page

Based on a request on my talk page, the associated deletion discussion and an IRC conversation, I have reviewed each source in the current article to assess if they demonstrate notability as defined by WP:BIO and are reliable sources to meet the guidance of WP:BLP. The 11 sources are assessed below. "Interview" (.html). The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ? This is an interview with Ottman in a journal so it is a reliable source. However it does little beyond re-hashing her profile as an expert in this field and does little to establish why she would be considered notable in the sense of impact on the historic record. "Read Excerpts" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This is a book advert website which mentions Ottman as a "Green marketing expert" once and would be considered a tangential mention as it does not discuss her notability. It is not a reliable source. "Green Marketing Myopia and the SunChips Snacklash" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This is a joint blog entry by Ottman with Mark Eisen. It is not an independent reliable source. "SB'07 Speakers" (.html). Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This is a list of speakers at a 2007 trade conference. Ottman is one of many, it does not make any of the participants notable for an encyclopaedia. "Jacquelyn Ottman" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This is Ottman's blog, it is not a reliable source to establish her notability. "How to Market Goods As Environmentally Friendly" (.pdf). The Wall Street Journal Center For Entrepreneurs Startup Journal. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ Ottman's website has this pdf file. It is a paper by P. Thomas though it is unclear if this journal has articles published by the WSJ or not. The paper quotes Ottman as a sales consultant but does not establish why she would be considered worth quoting. "LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FORUM" (.pdf). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ These are minutes of a meeting of a forum for the Department of Agriculture. Ottman took part by asking some questions of the panel, however of itself it does not explain why she would be notable. "Jacquelyn Ottman" (.html). Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This appears to be an agency website with a very brief profile. It is not independent and not a reliable source. "True Green?" (.html). Adweek. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ Article in Adweek where Ottman is mentioned once for a brief quote. It does not establish her notability. "Sustainable Brands Conference Program of Events" (.pdf). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ A conference agenda which shown Ottman was one of many participants at this industry event. "Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia". Environment. Heldref Publications. Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ✗ This is Ottman's own list of articles on her own website, it is not independent. In conclusion, the many sources recently added to the article are mostly a result of a marketing expert using the media to generate publicity for their own consultancy business. After striking off the compromised sources due to not being independent or otherwise unreliable, there is nothing that can demonstrate the impact on the historic record needed for encyclopaedic notability. There may be grounds for an article about the company rather than the person on the basis that some of the consulting contracts claimed might be notable, however the criteria of WP:ORG would need to be met. Fæ (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Fae- a lot of people have been helping the Jacquelyn Ottman entry- Is it up to your standard yet? If so please change your delete! Thanks. Green31569 (Green31569 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

No, I think people are being mislead by published self-promotional marketing material. I see little in the way of independent quality sources establishing her notability. Unfortunately easy availability of publications (even self-published) tends to ensure a BLP is created rather than demonstrable impact on the historic record where the printed records are not available in a simple Google search. Fæ (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{Green31569 (talk)}Okay-So is there any suggestions you have to make it better? She is indeed notable, so please advise on the best way to make this clear and informative on her page. comment added by Green31569 —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, find independent reliable sources that confirm her notability and are more significant than tangential mentions, meeting agendas or compromised rehashed PR material. Fæ (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey again Fae- you are right, it is indeed hard to find the types of sources you are talking about for a biopage. Do other people with bio's run in to this problem on wikipedia? Could you maybe show me some examples of other biopages and biosources that are legit? If you check out this page: http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=3192 and click/expand "praise" you can see all the other experts that attest to Jacquie Ottman's notability. I know that this can't be used on wikipedia, but at least you can see that she is notable and maybe give me a little more direction so I can try harder to find the appropriate source material. Thanks again! {Green31569 (talk)} Green31569 —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

BMB GROUP

Can I ask for you help? I do not know how to link the references to certain topics above?

BMB Group

Think it's ready to remove the prod yet? It's pretty spammy, and the edits indicate COI, but it's no longer a CFORK. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BMB Group

How can i insure this wiki pages is not deleted. I am trying to comply with the requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudiartexpert (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, based on your re-writing I have removed both the PROD and recent speedy deletion request. The article has reasonable sources and is not a blatant advert so I think that deletion would require wider discussion first. If you keep on improving the article, deletion should be unlikely to happen. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Musicians Institute

Why do you keep returning MI's article, that is based on facts, to an ad for MI? Why is MI even on here? It's just a business that teaches music. It's not a real college that is respeted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZingaZingaZinga (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Edit-warring is not acceptable for any reason. Fæ (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you concider it a war when someone is vandaiziing an article, because they don't like that the facts don't show favortism? Facts are facts, please research the facts. Why shoot the messager? This is why real publications use experts in the field they are writing on. Just because the facts don't show MI to be all that great doesn't make them wrong! You are either for facts or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As indicated above, there is a current discussion at Talk:Musicians Institute, I see no benefit in repeating the same discussion here. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran Indian movie gross collection.

Hi, I recently saw you asking for sources for gross of this indian movie Enthiran. I would like to give you some.

---

http://timesofindia.hotklix.com/link/Entertainment/Hollywood/Endhiran-Robot-Records-collection-318-crores-after-3-weeks-Online-Live-Real

---

http://thatstamil.oneindia.in/movies/specials/2010/10/enthiran-box-office-worldwide-rajini.html

Check out the additional verifiability of these sites here, -- http://liveandreal.info/about -- http://liveandreal.info/contact-us -- http://www.oneindia.in/contact.html

The second source is in - Tamil language. Sorry If you cant read I do not know how to make you go through it. But trust me it is one of the most reliable/ verifiable source. May be you can allow any administrator to read, if he knows Tamil.

I want the update to be made on the article based on these. Need your help also. Thanks.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Note, it may take a day for me to get back to these. Fæ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

After examining these, I am not happy about the context or source material. The hotklix.com hosted article uses identical text to a version of the Wikipedia article, even using the same style (meaningless for this article) footnote numbers. Consequently it fails WP:CIRCULAR. If you wish to debate these further, I suggest you do so on the article talk page where some Tamil speakers may be able to help out. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see you quoted "the information fails WP:CIRCULAR as http://oneindia.in may have copied it straight from an unverified earlier version from Wikipedia." I got your point here. But my friend this web page oneindia.in on enthiran was published on Oct 17, 2010.

If you prove that before this date there was a page showing 318 crore, then what you say is acceptable. But it clearly shows after this webpage published date ONLY enthiran article was uploaded in wikipedia. (Infact it was very FIRST done by Bala1985ji (talk contribs) on 02:13, 19 October 2010)

So citing it was copied from wikipedia to oneindia webpage is not correct. I hope you get me. Infact this is the most reliable page and trusted sites. Importantly it clearly states all facts, even though it is in Tamil language. So it should be accepted.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see you like oneindia.in, however it is a portal. Portals regurgitate news items from other sources and have little in the way of editorial control or responsibility for their content. If this exact figure on income is correct, easily making the film in the top ten of highest grossing films ever produced in India, then there should be many quality sources to support the claim made on oneindia.in. Unfortunately I do not find any as pointed out on the article talk page. I recommend any further discussion on sources in on the article talk page so that this is not just my opinion versus yours. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran

I reverted back the group citations. I support WP:CITEKILL. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Twixt now and Sunrise

you set this for deleteion saying that it may not be in filming already i thi;nk is the understanding?? well imdb.com shows the film actively filming and i saw filming with my own eyes and a short 15 second shakey video segment. coppola and kilmer have been in my town all week filming this movie. new york times has confirmed the film and has imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braitostees (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please first read the reference guideline before arguing against the notice. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" you have yet to identify a reliable source that states principal photography has started. Fæ (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Dear Fæ, I really can't understand why you keep deleting the information which I add in the article of Elena Satine! Your changes doesn't make any sense. what kind of proof are you talking about? Go to IMDB and see. --Vaxxxo (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

As per the big notice added at the top of the article, IMDB is not considered adequate as a source for personal information. The site has no clear editorial policy and accepts user submissions which may not be accurate. If you wish to discuss IMDB as a source I suggest you raise a request at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

J kyle

Hi. Could you tell me why you reverted my edit as vandalism? Thanks. 83.32.244.87 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you said "(somewhat incredibly)" which fails the guidance of Neutral point of view. Fæ (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so that may fail POV. That is not vandalism. Could you also tell me why you removed the fully valid internal link (now re-inserted by me)? I also think you should remove the vandalism warning on my talk page.83.32.244.87 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the general vandalism user warning with a specific vandalism user warning relating to NPOV. As for unpicking your edit to choose which bits might be good, this is not required when reverting apparent vandalism. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I've referenced the lie detector stuff as pseudo-science. Your action was clearly an over-reaction. There was no vandalism (apparent or otherwise) and there was no enormous edit to unpic so leaving the valid part wouldn't have been too much trouble. Putting a warning on my page was insulting.83.32.244.87 (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was blatantly non-neutral and unsourced. If you feel the standard mild and civil rubic of {{Uw-vandalism1}} or {{Uw-npov1}} is insulting, I suggest you take it up on the talk pages of those templates. If wish to complain about my anti-vandalism activities, I suggest you follow one of the standard Dispute resolution processes as discussing this further seems pointless. Fæ (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue is with your calling something "vandalism" when it clearly was not. I am not complaining about the language of the template - I am complaining about your action. What I am complaining about is your attitude.

It was my impression that "assume good faith" was one of the most important guidelines here - and that is something which you have signally failed to do. I suspect that the Dispute Resolution Process to which you refer would a a sledgehammer to a nut. But I'll have a look at it in case it covers this case. Thanks for the link.83.32.244.87 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:The Houglass

I've removed the text on the talk page (above your warning) as it appears to be a copyvio. I've deleted it from User talk:Sam-Crucifix as well. Looks like some campaign is under way... Peridon (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes remove advert-type text from a user talk page (when a blatant WP:USER violation), probably should have collapsed or removed that one too as they get in the way of discussion. I'll keep them on my watchlist for the moment. Thanks for the heads-up. Fæ (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged The Hourglass's userpage csd copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

JamesB got it while I was typing the above... Peridon (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Evans deletion explained on talk page,

I removed the inaccurate word "exonerated" and explained the reason on the article talk page. I removed the name of the complainant in a case of sexual harassment, also explained on the talk page. There are full references to reputable sources within the discussion. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.114.57 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your detailed and explanatory edit summary at page Tom Cruise, as opposed to the inappropriate edit summary in the revert by the prior user that removed the same material. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem - there was a thread on ANI that relates to these links (here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Worldcat use), you may want to check it out if this template is appearing on other articles in your Watchlist. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for dragging you into this, but you might be interested in it. (Note that you are not the subject of the thread, you are only marginally related to it.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I doubt I'll comment as there is no current legal threat, until there is WP:NLT does not apply. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

15miles Page Deletion

I'm not sure if I should be contacting you or Anthony Appleyard. Therefore, I have copied below what I posted to his page:

"In your speedy deletion of 15miles page, I didn't have a chance to convince you otherwise. I shortened and revised the original copy to remove promotional verbiage, including the company's tagline that has the word "Sales" in it. I am trying to create a post similar to the 360i page, which even explains awards (I removed awards from 15miles' page to be less promotional). If permitted to continue this page, I will simply state what 15miles is, unless you can accurately pinpoint for me what prompted the deletion. Corygrassell (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

As I'm new to Wikipedia, I understand that pages cannot be promotional; however, I could not find any major differences between the two pages I compared in my initial message to Mr. Appleyard. I would like to continue the page for 15miles, as I believe the firm holds relevance today. In fact, it shares the title of "World's Largest Local-Search Agency." Furthermore, its recent awards (which I deleted from the copy) further validate it as a legit entity. While I agree that encyclopedia entries should be free of advertising, they should not prevent existing entities from "existing" by denying them a place. I'm happy to oblige, based on your response and Wikipedia's policies; however, I need validation. Thank you kindly! Corygrassell (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ask AA he can, at his discretion, put a copy of the deleted article in your user space as a draft for improvement and to resolve any issues of notability or promotion. Fæ (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't

ok, so please PROD your latest article - Liam Wyatt, about myself.

I appreciate that you have written this in good faith and maybe one day I will be "notable" :-) but for the moment this makes the encyclopedia look self-referential and is embarrassing for me. Even by Wikipedia's own standards I am non-notable. I would appreciate it if you would PROD this as soon as possible.

The only truly reliable source on that article is the New York Times article which does refer to me but is not "about" me. All of the rest are merely blogs mentioning that I attended something. Ultimately the activity that this article is relying on for the claim to notability is my project at the British Museum - but merely having done a volunteer internship is not a claim to notability (even if I do think that project was fun!) or else every single museum-studies student would have an article about themselves.

Witty Lama 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll tuck it back under a noindexed user draft. If you get that book published there may be a firm rationale to refresh it. Fæ (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Check request : File:IntimacyInRed.jpg

Much appreciated if confirmation for the above image which claims a permission was granted was provided. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kudowor, AIntimacyInRed or IntimacyInRed give no matches to emails current or past in the permissions queues. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Image info request

Hi Fæ, I moved File:LataRamdas.jpg, to which you added the OTRS permission, to the Commons. Could you perhaps add additional info to the description (date, original author etc.) from the ticket if possible? Thank you Hekerui (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to say that apart from the name of the copyright holder (which would remain confidential to OTRS), there is no extra information (looking at the Commons version) in the email. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmpf, thanks for replying though. Hekerui (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Noël Coward

Thank you for your message on my discussion page. We had a stable FA article, but a redlinked editor has been trying to impose her/his preferred citation styles on top of those agreed before and at FAC. Reverting to the agreed style would make the article easier to maintain. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please see my comment at the article's talk page, where I quote the relevant guideline and give some background. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, replied on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

It doesn't matter, they are removing the AFD template now. To quote Cool Hand Luke: Some editors you just can't reach. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're all over the place. I note you gave a uw-1 when they were already up to uw-4 today, are you sure you did not want to report to AIV? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a -2 actually, but I think we can give them one more chance. The BLPPROD removal was potentially justified based on the IMDB source. I wouldn't bother with another full set of warnings though, if they remove the AfD again, AIV them. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hah, as I was typing that, they removed it again. I'll send it to AIV if it isn't there already. Gigs (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Oh my, everyone seems to be queuing up to revert them. Bam, bam, bam, block. Fæ (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Drollenwippen

Hi Fae. Just to let you know I've changed your CSD 'nonsense' tag to G11 'hoax'. It is in fact a fairly disgusting pornographic text in Dutch. Chhers, -Kudpung (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed the same vandalism (via IGLOO) on a number of pages (see 85.90.91.59 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)) and so did not need to investigate that much before speedying. Fæ (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebooking

My edit at Facebooking was purly constructive. JeiTana (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You may use the word Facebooking to mean throwing a book in someone's face but on Wikipedia you will need to find reliable sources before creating articles about it. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Realistically? What is considered a reliable sorce for slang? Should go round finding about several thousend uses of it on the internet? Don't revert it.. just put a unreliable sources tag. I know how the wikipedia system works. --JeiTana (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, then you know that you can create a draft in your userspace and find at least one real source (like a published book or an article in a national newspaper) before creating this article. See WP:IINFO. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Paolo_Corallini

Dear Fae,

Thank you for your cooperation in building the biography of "Paolo Corallini". I know third party sources and citations are requested that's why I used only this kind of sources to build up this article. The most third-party resource in "Aikido" is Aikido Journal, and there I got the most information from. I will put more details as I find some other reliable sources. Thank you for reading. Champagne82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne82 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Essar Hypermart

Nice work on the reference, thanks. Top Jim (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think a version of this was speedied (I certainly noticed it being flagged in IGLOO), so it's sort of nice to see it turned around. Fæ (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

I saw your recent summary to Stephen Baxter. Reporting it as spam was a bit extreme, I simply found no other reliable source but Avatar Wiki. Please assume good faith next time on such an occasion. 88.105.21.91 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This change was the one I reverted. It is an Amazon associate link which makes money for the associate any time someone purchases books (or pre-orders Baxter's book) after following the link. I see no reference to "Avatar Wiki". There is no particular value in adding this link when you can cite the book with its assocated ISBN which automatically provides an impartial link page with all the online database alternatives to choose from, none of which are associate links (click on ISBN 0297863436 to see it). Perhaps you are confused about who did what? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding! 88.105.21.91 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images

"With respect to your message on File:Islam Denounces Antisemitism.jpg, please refer to point 2 under additional points above. Thanks," I don't understand. Where is "point 2"? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've reformatted the note to make it clearer. Fæ (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the "show" button. Great, I send the info using the Commons:OTRS process. I did this several years ago under GNU, but things have changed in wikipedia since then. Question: I have permission for "File:Jesus_Second_Coming_Book.jpg" as well, but I did not upload that file. Is the process the same for that image too, or do I have to upload the image myself under a different name? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have permission for the image then who uploaded it should be irrelevant for an OTRS ticket. You should be able to bundle them all into the same email, remember to include full URL links as this helps the volunteer that has to check them. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Paolo Corallini

Hallo Fae,

Thanks so much for your explanation, I read more instructions about citing and sourcing. Thanks a lot for helping me in building up a suitable article for Wiki. I just added few resources in the page "Paolo Corallini", which I believe are good third-party sources as the previous ones, one being an article in the website of the Olimpic Italian Committe. There are also some more.

Please let me know what better I can do in order to let this biography match the notability requirements.

Thanks so much! Champagne82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne82 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jasper Johns

I don't assume malice or anti-gay sentiments behind your deletion of my addition to Johns's entry, but in fact the sentence I recreated was not clumsy in the slightest. It simply added a fact that the entry - to my mind pointedly - left out. Just say he's gay, since he is. Why do you tell me to "find a quote" to support it? The sentence in question already says it - in a "shhhh - let's not mention it out loud" kind of way. That's a bit too retrograde as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdSikov (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question was stating he had a relation ship with another man. Adding "gay" to the statement was awkward and superfluous. It would be far more relevant and encyclopaedic in tone to add Johns' own statements about being gay or quote from the works of others about his influence on gay culture. The following book has a suitable entry for Johns which could do exactly this and you should be able to read the entire page on Google Books:

• Stern, Keith (2009), Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, Jennifer Canzoneri, ISBN 9781933771878

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I edited the statement as you suggested. But I must say that I think your tone is harsh and your point of view wrong. As a writer who has published 7 highly regarded books about films and filmmakers, I'm in a good position to know what's actually awkward and what's the result of hostility that has little to do with my writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdSikov (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Though as you know nothing about my world-view, sexuality (or gender), age, publications or professional and academic career you may want to pause before rushing to judgement. WP:AGF and WP:ABF may be worth a glance. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I made no such assumptions. I gave you my opinion of your opinion, and I stated my credentials. That's all. But no matter - I like what you've done, and I thank you greatly for doing it, and for all you do around here. If I came off as a jerk, I'm truly sorry - I'm just very impatient with the way culture operates. --EdSikov (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Looks much better, good job...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your request for an editor review

Hi there Fæ! I've noticed that you've requested an editor review, located here. While it is not required, users that request a review are strongly encouraged to review other users, as this greatly helps with the backlog of requests there. Think of it as a mutual effort, you review someone and someone will review you. So if it's not too much to ask, please consider reviewing someone (the person before you would be fine - if he's already been reviewed, just look for someone that hasn't). I understand that you may not feel qualified or know how to review someone, so there are instructions in the Instructions for reviewers tab at the top of the page. As always, feel free to message me if you have any questions. Netalarm^talk 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll do one. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rick Dickson

Article needs a good clean :) Congenital (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

notability of the parents of "royalty" not demonstrated

hello. can you explain to me a little bit about how csd g-8 works? I have not even had a chance to post any msg or explanation on the relevant talk page and the redir I created has been marked for deletion twice. S*K*A*K*K 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If Rosalind Maud Cubitt is intended be an article for the daughter of Roland Cubitt, 3rd Baron Ashcombe then you need to make that clear and provide sources. I suggest you try creating a draft version or discuss on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility first. Being a member of the royal family does not necessarily make the article automatically notable, WP:Notability (people) must still be addressed. Fæ (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized

I appreciate the warning, but I'm not actually the author. I just created a redirect page that was later turned into an actual article. Thanks, though. I'll pass it along to the other editor. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm using Twinkle which pulls out the initial article creator from the history to provide a notice. Fæ (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of OTSR privilege

According to the post User_talk:Fæ#Adnan_Oktar, user User:Fæ based his decision to role back the Adnan Oktar due in part to the contents of the reply given to a request for Copyright permission. While I do not know what he could have understood in that reply to require a role back, the submissions to OTSR are declared by wikipedia policy to be confidential. This seems to me a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, am I wrong? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to be investigated if anyone cared to. You appear to misunderstand my statement on my own talk page "interesting response with a release from the copyright holder (yet to be verified)". This meant that though the image page in question claimed to have an OTRS ticket requested, it had not been verified yet because at that point in time no email had been confirmed at OTRS. In this case as I had not read any email there could not, in any conceivable way, be any compromise of OTRS confidentiality. I would much prefer you made serious complaints about me using a proper dispute resolution process (as you have now been advised several times) rather than bandying my name around in various talk page discussions without supplying any tangible evidence. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from my talk page, I am doing my best to find out how to handle this situation. Your behavior (observing the changes for two weeks without comment or criticism, and then had an OPEN/SHUT case in six hours deleting all the changes without attempting to contact the author of the changes for comment or explanation) is baffling. So I accept your explanation, and will try to proceed in good faith.--Geoffry Thomas

Adnan Oktar

Hello Fae. At the moment, the Adnan Oktar-article is undergoing a lot of changes. These changes all were made by new users, who only edit this article. At this moment, the article relies more on Mr. Oktars own website as source, while other parts are referenced by sources in the Turkish language. To me, it all looks quite suspicious. Could you please takee a look and see if my suspicions are justified? With regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have keep this on my watchlist and it may well be that some compromised interest is at play. Most recently I put up one of the book cover images for deletion and this got an interesting response with a release from the copyright holder (yet to be verified). I shall take a (neutral) second look at the history and may ask for clarification from the involved parties if there appear to be sufficient grounds. Thanks for your diligence. Fæ (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Process is underway. Once any process has started, please take care not to be seen to be canvassing on the issue as this may be interpreted as bringing bias to any discussion on proposed action. You are, of course, free to analyse and debate in those same discussions... Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on it! Great job!Jeff5102 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

.: I am sure Jeff is not biased at all in reference to this article but I want to thank all who are contributing in this regard.~ :.: ~ 10:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenbeehive (talk • contribs)

LGBT

Yes this article needs many citations and will need more when I am finished for tonight. If you wouldn't mind, while I am working on the article, to refrain from creating edit conflicts. I appreciate your efforts but give me another hour or so please. TY... Tomorrow I will get out my professional journals and enter citations.DocOfSoc (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

No problem, if you check the history I have previously removed a fair chunk of the article as unsourced and the topic itself seems a bit of a red flag to me due to its potential as a magnet for poorly sourced or outdated homophobic stereotypes. The fine line for such article between being an up to date encyclopaedic entry or a eclectic essay is not always easy to judge. A deeper article on the evolution of such stereotypes and their associated cultural influence and influences is probably beyond the capacity of Wikipedia to provide or maintain (certainly beyond my enthusiasm to create). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

TY Fae, what I had previously read was jsut plain awful. I f you are still around I would appreciate any input on this sensitive and grossly misunderstood subject. I am approaching this from an academic's point of view and appreciate any suggestions and jsut jump in. I had not considered the evolution but was planing a historical perspective. Look forward to working with you sister! DocOfSoc (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll ponder adding a comment to the talk page but I am not in a rush to add content to the article itself. My issue with the topic is its essay format (per WP:NOT PAPER). A more encyclopaedic style might be, say, to address the most common specific stereotypes which might point out to some established (more narrow) articles for detail. Off the top of my head, examples of such articles might be Dykes on Bikes, Butch and femme and Camp (style). Such a change in format would probably take a longer term talk page discussion to firm up. Fæ (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Request for File:The_Signs_of_Jesus'_Second_Coming.jpg‎

I uploaded this file which is the same as File:Jesus_Second_Coming_Book.jpg. The latter file keeps getting flagged for deletion ((ffdc)) by a "bot" even though authorization was verified and archived in the OTRS system, its ticket is 2010111810006966. Is it possible to approve the new file and delete the old file? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not needed. Once the deletion discussion is closed the bot should give up. I suggest you ignore the annoying template if it gets re-added as there is no chance that the file would be deleted (and it could be promptly undeleted if an admin were to make a mistake). I'll add a note on the deletion discussion though. -- Just remembered the {{bots}} template, added to the article as a temporary fix.

BTW, there is a case for trimming down the number of book cover images in the article. The article can refer to a Commons category of images where any reader can browse through anything uploaded and the issue with including many cover images is that the article begins to look like advertising (which is, in any practical sense, the point of cover art on a book cover). You may want to think about limiting the number of book images to the most notable. I have not raised the issue yet as there is plenty of other stuff going on with the article but it has been at the back of my mind. See WP:IG for the most relevant style guide. Fæ (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss this on the talk page. There seems to be consensus the subjects publishing and multimedia organization is one of his most well known attributes. It is recommended to be one of the four things mentioned in the lede. Many sources mention "glossy, well produced, glamorous" publications. I added these book covers to illustrate that point. --Geoffry Thomas --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though I'll leave it for when the discussion page is quieter.

Do you understand that I uploaded a second image, so the bot is not flagging it. The second image however is not yet OTRS approved. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my theoretical opinion as an OTRS volunteer would be that the original ticket applies to the original image, there is no need to extend or move it to a duplicate. As an involved party, I will avoid opening or searching for any new email you might have sent, however as a contributor I'll add the duplicate file template. Fæ (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue

Slow down for the moment. These are about other cases. Do you really want to deal with all the legal issues at one time? I was asking a specific question. Is the graphic text of an indictment appropriate for wikipedia? WP:BLP "wikipedia is not a tabloid". --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

dudesnude

hey would you wanna help me out with dudesnude and spruce it up a bit? i have been working on it hard.Hemanetwork (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much, your very cool for helping let me know if you ever need help!Hemanetwork (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we can only go by the sources and the article is a marginal case so it is hard to judge the outcome of an AfD. If it does get deleted you may wish to ask for Userfication in order to gradually add more sources. Fæ (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How hard is it to get userfication? and i replied further on my talk pageHemanetwork (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediocre Films

Why are you deleting all our stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 02np8892 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Someone changed your prod to AFD - I have moved your comment to the AFD here. Please make sure I didn't misrepresent anything.  7  00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

hookup websites

do you still think that hookup websites is an inappropriate category? basically what it means is that there are websites that are for dating and some that are for cruising for sex and that this behavior is described as a hookup by a published source. furthermore a website does not have to be solely for hooking up such as craigslist, because craigslist for example has a section for sex a popular one that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, mainly due to hookup being a rather vague slang term whilst "online dating", "social network" are more easily understood and defined. Note that Craigslist is a rather poor example to consider as they removed their dating area after criticism when it was used for significant numbers of scams and sexual-related attacks (notably, even resulting in murder). I am not suggesting you cannot try if you believe this the right thing to pursue but categories are only useful in the long term if they are completely logically clear and non-controversial (as controversial categories are not stable in the long term as they are tempting targets for category-warring). Fæ (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dabangg

Dude. Read the article clearly. It says about the "expected" revenue of Endhiran but, a firm/ exact/ accurate value of what Dabangg already grossed worldwide:

Dabangg released earlier this year is third as it grossed INR 212 crore ($47 million).

Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording is confused as the article swaps around context for figures quoted and other reports on Boxofficeindia.Com have been blatantly incorrect due to errors being made so I would be happier if this was left blank until there is one collaborating reliable source. If Dabangg is 3rd or 4th highest ever grossing film in Indian history, this critical figure should be easy to verify. Fæ (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tag is fair enough, however the reference easily qualifies WP:RS, and you will get the same answer if you even place it on WP:RSN. You're right about the contradicting figures thing, though. IBOS Network, usually considered the second biggest authority on Bollywood box office reports after BoxOfficeIndia, depicts the adjusted gross as Rs. 202.88 crores. Scieberking (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose a slight reformat to avoid theses issues, where any figure is single sourced it can be in a lighter grey colour rather than black. This will encourage multiple sources for each number included without making such changes or addition a struggle every time. Fæ (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Harvey (playwright)

Hey, I added some info about Jonathan Harvey's new book deal, and his writing a new sitcom. The trouble is, he has been discussing these via his Facebook page. I'm not sure how to source that. 98.225.205.138 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not normally considered a suitable source. Sometimes a minimal quote from a blog may be suitable in a biography when written by the same subject but as per Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, this information is a bit speculative and self-serving to add to an encyclopaedic article. If you could find mention of his forthcoming works in an independent published interview (such as from a newspaper or magazine), that would be completely okay. In this particular case, the article has a woeful lack of citations, you may want to search around more generally to support the facts already included before adding more. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suvashism

O.K. I need a better reason then me somehow "Threatening" someone. I was not threatening I have no idea WHY you would say that. You might have also said hes fake but I wrote FEW people know about him. smart-asses.--Bobshingel (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

city clinic

what do you think of San Francisco City Clinic?THISBITES 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

It looks okay to me, though I think a few non-academic sources showing impact in the press, books or magazines would help address wider notability. For example:

1. New Scientist 1988 [1]
2. Poole, Matthew Richard (2009), Frommer's San Francisco Free & Dirt Cheap, Frommer's, p. 190, ISBN 9780470399057
3. The Advocate 2005 [2]

Fæ (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Added but I don't know how to incorporated the book, access it.THISBITES 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

Okay, I've formatted it for you. You should have a browse through the template documentation at {{citation}}. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

G'day Fæ - just pinging you to let you know I have undertaken your editor review. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I have sent a follow-up by email. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hunter's Planet

Regarding this article I created, let me add some reasons why the deletion is not called for. This book was published by Bantam Spectra and is a solid part of the Alien's Vs. Predator Franchise. In addition, I would point out it is a popular work, still sold in most major US bookstores for over 15 years, and written by an author with many novels to his name.

I read the guideline, but I have trouble seeing how it can be considered minor.

Thanks for looking into this.

WikiWhiteRabbit (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the background and am familiar with Bischoff's work. In this case I still cannot see a clear rationale using the criteria defined at WP:BK unless this novelization is an official version from an associated Predator film. As a example, not every Star Trek novelization is clearly related to a Star Trek episode or recognized as an official version of an episode. If this book is officially recognized by an associated film studio as being the book based on a film, then there probably is a rationale under BK criteria #3 but there must be reliable sources to back up such a justification. If the article were deleted, this would not stop the book and its significance being discussed in the biographical article for Bischoff. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see your logic. Though this is a gray area I can abide by your decision. However, so that I can get a better feel for the rules; can I create "Novel Series" for Bischoff? Many of his related to TV shows that are no longer on the air. Some are original.

Cheers WikiWhiteRabbit (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean an article about a particular series of his novels, then the series itself would have to have evidence of notability in accordance with WP:BK or more generally WP:GNG. An example would be Lazarus Long, though I note that that article could do with better citations to demonstrate notability to be honest and you should be aware of WP:IINFO#1 which advises against plot-only articles. Alternatively you can create a section in the Bischoff article to explain the series characteristics and cultural impact. It might be helpful to discuss such an improvement on the article talk page first. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bosco

Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

TV Shows

I'd just like some clarification. I realize that not all episodes of Monk are memorable/notable enough for their own article. However, what makes these (TB or Not TB, The Mistake (House), Failure to Communicate, The Carpet, The Cafe (Seinfeld), The Suicide (Seinfeld), and The Limo (Seinfeld)) so memorable? Why has no one nominated these for deletion ("The Suicide" was, and yet, for some reason, it was kept, even though it used the same reasoning as the Monk articles)? Is it just because a lot of established editors like those shows? I've been looking for clarification on this for a long time, but no one seems to know why. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it is arbitrary. If enough enthusiasts support a TV episode article it is unlikely to be deleted even if there is absolutely no evidence of notability and there are no reliable sources to demonstrate impact on the historic record. My viewpoint is that articles should fundamentally be encyclopaedic in the long term; so if an article is a TV episode guide with no other evidence of cultural or historic impact then, eventually when the enthusiasts get bored, it will be deleted. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Open Plaques - following yesterday

Hi Fæ,

Following our conversation at the London Wikimedia meetup, I put up a thread over on Village Pump about building integration between Wikipedia and Open Plaques. Thanks for the advice. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see a pub chat turn into action. It will be interesting to see if folks latch on to the integration-al implications. If one takes a longish view, there is some potential here for Wikipedia to benefit by, say, having auto-improving infoboxes for biographies by leveraging data from other open data sources such as the British Library... Fæ (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

facebook

It was the first I'd seen: Template:Facebook, but apparently it's been around since June 2009. --Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel strongly enough about it to raise for deletion myself, though I would support deletion if it were raised. I have updated the template documentation to emphasis the warning about only using "official" Facebook links. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Felix nativitas

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Fox}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks WSC, I appreciate the sentiment, though I'll opt out of re-templating the WikiLove/holiday cheer myself due to my hind-brain flagging it as a possible mimetic social virus. Fæ (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 18 December 2010 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, because I am looking for sources now. I did not re-add any other data you removed because I found your edits essentially correct, but in this case I'll source it. The text came before the sources because it's a bit more comfortable to me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Okay, I see you reverted before I could add the sources. So I'll do it later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Becic Method

Hello. Just informing you that I changed your db-spam to a PROD. I checked the references and the article and it seems to be a good faith effort of an article instead of pure advertising. I think the real notability is in the creator though and I've put as much in the PROD.--v/r - TP 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, though you should be aware that the article was deleted shortly before recreation if you check the deletion log. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I understand how it's seem as a spam article, but I want to give the editor the benefit of the doubt to either find better citations or to create an article on Semir Becic. Thanks for understanding.--v/r - TP 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I must say that my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia on something I can easily write about is leaving me with a sour taste. I'll read guidelines and articles, but the speed at which negative comments are sent my way is quite depressing. I now understand that writing about one own's stuff is extremely badly seen, but I only did it when I saw the RipIt page's history - the page was created by its original author: there was no backlash at that time there so I thought it was normal (time at which RipIt did not have that much notability - it now has more). In any case, I'll probably avoid wikipedia for a while until the sour taste disappear. I heard horror stories about contributing to Wikipedia and I'm quite unsure if I'll try again. Maknak (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The best path for users in your position is to draft an article in their userspace first and then get feedback on WP:RFF and possibly at WP:COIN. This gets all the issues about potential misuse of Wikipedia for advertising etc. out of the way before an article is created. Taking a break is probably a good idea and then come back with fresh views on how you can contribute with your special expertise without making it appear as if you have a hidden agenda. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing pages

Fae, Do you habitually or intentionally overrite contributions as they are being made? It makes it hard to address your feedback if you don't allow editors to complete their contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinecrystal (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If there were a series of edit conflicts raised I would normally leave it for a bit and return later but I have not had any such system warnings. You can use {{Inuse}} advisory notice if you would like to make it clear that you are doing some intensive work for a bit and would prefer other editors to lay off, but please only use it sparingly and for a short time. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Besanko'd

Just to let you know I've changed your PROD to a CSD:G10, as it appears to be a personal attack on Mr Besanko, after some recent controversy (including personal attacks) centering on his company and product. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what this nonsense was about. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darcy Antonellis

I think I've addressed any notability problems; in future, when these things crop up, feel free to drop me a line on my talkpage; I have full LexisNexis access, which makes scrubbing these things a lot easier. Hope I can help out - Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my intuition was that Antonellis was an impressive Exec but would stay un-notable by :en standards; you neatly demonstrated that one should stay cautious of relying on such gut instinct... I've added a link for the WB press release that mentions the Emmys. The only drawback with Lexis is that the article can end up with fewer links to easy to access source material for the layman reader. Fæ (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Intuition seems like a dubious standard to gauge notability. Some quick web and news searches reveal that Darcy Antonellis is a public figure in the film industry responsible for the studio's technology policy, approach to anti-piracy, and relationships with YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, BitTorrent and other mechanisms for digital delivery. This topic is extremely timely given the public debate over piracy, lawsuits between media and technology companies, network neutrality and other contested isues. Professionals in the media and technology industries would greatly benefit from being able to identify key individuals in an otherwise opaque landscape that's not very well covered by Wikipedians who rely on instinct rather than expertise.Alpinecrystal (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My intuition is based on the successful sourcing of many, many BLPs as well as the deletion of many doubtful commercial and self-promotional articles. This particular AfD nomination and my intuition was based on a reasonable Google News and Google Books search which showed no mention of winning Emmys or anything else that might have been a claim to have addressed the WP:BIO criteria. The fact that Ironholds (who happens to have made more than 1,000 times more contributions to Wikipedia than yourself) is particularly skilled at ferreting out decent sources where others might give up is not a reason for regret on my part. You may wish to examine the guidance of WP:BEFORE and sample something of my track record to decide if you have any real complaint before commenting further. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the tips! WackyWorkshop (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was adding an useful link :)

Hello Fæ. I've edited the "Secret Santa" article to add a link to "Moodyo" website (http://www.moodyo.com/en). After this, you have removed the link. I think that you've deleted this link because you've thought I was spamming or trying to promote my site. I searched on Wikipedia in other languages and in the "Secret Santa" article (Wichteln in Deutsch, Amigo Secreto in Portuguese or Amigo Invisible in Spanish) there were some links to sites where you can play an "online Secret Santa". That was the main reason. Excuse me if you felt I tried to spam or promote a website without reasons for it. Thank you Padysan (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi, thanks for explaining, I have removed the user warning from your page as a result and my apologies if it seemed unwelcoming. I deleted the list of websites from the article as we try to avoid arbitrary lists of vendors in articles, see External link spamming, unless the article is about a commercial organization or a specific list of notable vendors in which case such lists normally have selection criteria that require a Wikipedia article to exist for each one and there it should be constrained enough to be possible to list all notable vendors in that particular market sector. Fæ (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter articles.

We use the British spelling of words in articles related to Harry Potter; please do not Americanise them.Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take time to know what you are talking about, using "ize" is not an Americanization. I'll leave a note on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, just because the OED has accepted ize as a valid word, doesn't mean it isn't an Americanisation, organise is the correct spelling in this case as it is both correct English, and the way the author spellings in the original published source materiel. I would suggest it is you that needs to take into account the history of articles and the varieties of English used when reverting established users edits. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no established consensus on the article in question, if you bothered to check the history of Albus_Dumbledore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you can see the use of "ize" in words such as "institutionalized" date back many months. You are also confusing the spelling of "ize" which is perfectly good "British English" with the use of "ze" in words such as "analyse" which may be considered "American English". Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of reference management software

Hello Fæ

You reverted my changes ("No article is treated as not notable.") Is it not sufficient that Citavi is mentioned in the German Wikipedia, c. f. Citavi ? I would like to mention that Citavi has been available in German and English for a few weeks now.

Regards, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfmw (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources and examining the version on :de shows a lack of independent quality sources to demonstrate notability. The different language Wikipedias are independent of each other and can follow different interpretations of policy, so continued existence on :de is no guarantee of notability for :en. You are free to draft or attempt to substantiate the article Citavi, and should it be shown to be notable then I would have no problem with it being linked in other articles. Fæ (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfmw (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia. (OrangeLisa (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

Dark Orbit

Dear Fae, it seems there is no way to reply to your last message other than via talk.

Before I edited the Dark Orbit article, I did in good faith try to see whether there was a guideline that fobade me from doing so, what I came across was not policies but rules and guidelines, which again in good faith, I did try to follow.

There are several issues with your 'final warning' aside from its tone, which seems a tad hostile. You seem to assume that I am using two accounts to deliberately publish my own amendment to this article and circumvent wikipedia policies, this is simply not true - I used the first account to edit but missed the 'd' of my last part of my email address by mistake. I then tried to access that account when the page had been removed to check why but was unable to and was not able to get a fresh password because of my error - hence I never received your first message. I reposted the amendment not because I thought an administrator had removed it but because I thought another use had. A simple check of that account will verify this version of events and I am very happy for you to go and verify this. You will see that the email addresses are differnt, you will see that I did attempt to log in and was unsuccessful, you will see, in short that I did not successfully access my first account after you had, presumably, sent me a warning to that account. I have nothing to hide, which is why I kept my log in details as close as I could, and the content of the amendment the same.

The second but perhaps more important issue, is that I inserted an edit, which I thought was both factually accurate and balanced, into an entry that already falls foul of wikipedia guidelines and has been marked as such. In fact, that article also carries the author's personal analysis and could be considered as their personal view. Their description could easily fall foul of the criteria you have set out for me, in that it is 'unpublished research' - there are no citations for the many sections, including Items, Clans, Skylab and Controversy.

If you check the citations that are used they do not take one to scientific papers or other analysis, some cannot be accessed unless you are a game user, so useless for the general reader and some do not work. In fact my impression is that these citations are mearly there to lend a veneer of authority to an article that is in everyway as personally analysed as my addition was. It was this that I tried to expand - I'm sorry that I followed the lead of the tone of that article itself. How can wikipedia in all good conscience take the approach you have to my edit but leave an article that it has already marked as not meeting your standards online? Did you seek to remove that article of because of its flaws or seek to block its user - it seems not.

Since I'm unable to satisfy wikipedia's 'policies' to expand this article, and since the article is marked as not meeting your standards, I propose that the whole Dark Orbit Page be deleted for the reasons I cite above. I would welcome you taking action to ensure that either the article is either cleaned up so the existing text conforms to the standards you have set out for me and the standards that wikipedia has already noted against it or is removed.

I welcome your feedback and in the spirit of open and respectful dialogue rather than what seemed to be a rather annoyed message to me.

All the best Iain :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAJVD1 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I have removed the user-warning on your new account name on this basis. I'll take a second look at Darkorbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), though probably not today. In particular the logs for Dark Orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) show this as being deleted as non-notable in the past and the name being "salted" to avoid recreation, which would attract a careful examination of the sources.

See the WP:USURP process if you wish to reclaim your old account name. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fae, I really appreciate and was heartened by your swift feedback and your message with its warm tone and very helpful reference sources. Thanks also fo taking a second look at the article when you get a chance. All the best - Iain :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAJVD1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi

to update: ive reviewed and cleaned it out. Some queries left, if you know the answer you can easily fill it up now. So we're all set now except for the consequences part. (which can not be discussed.)(Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

The 500 Most Influential Muslims

• The 500 Most Influential Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I recently saw that an article you nominated for deletion, which was subsequently deleted, has been recreated. The new 500 Most Influential Muslims article looks to me to have the same flaws as the deleted article. I thought you might have insight into whether or not the new article was any better. Dialectric (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears to be very similar to the earlier version (from what I remember) so I have marked it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4, hopefully that will be sufficient. The original deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 500 Most Influential Muslims. --Fæ (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

River Oaks Baptist School

• River Oaks Baptist School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey! I found some secondary sources for this. Even though the PROD expired, I think I can restore it if I add new information (secondary sources) - then you are welcome to file for AFD if you still believe it should be AFD'd. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, if it has some sort of reasonable grounds and likely prospects for improvement against the GNG (such as being of significant local history importance) I would prefer to keep even if it were a marginal case. The repeated deletion might warrant some reasonable explanation added to the article talk page about the importance of any new sources. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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

UCH

Hello Fæ,

Could we have a brief chat about University_College_Hospital. I noticed you were editing University_College_London today. --Lidos (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wong Lo Kat

Hello Fæ. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wong Lo Kat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Already declined by another admin, do not readd the same tag. Thank you. Courcelles 09:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Really not sure why the script decided you had added that tag. Sorry. Courcelles 09:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm glad to see that the scripts go wonky for other people too. In this case I had reverted a vandal going on a blitz, I had not closely evaluated the article, just restored it to its challenged state, so I have no strong opinions either way on the existing speedy tag. Fæ (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Web Platform

...(deleted) Please do not delete conversation threads without consensus, the deleted section can be seen here Fæ (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fae... I have already posted an article about Wikipedia, 5 hits in 5 minutes... I'm sure the word will spread quickly. I also found some other good articles about Wikipedia's behavior. It is interesting that you say "volunteers do it for free", do you think you earned a star by working for free? Nothing is free... We all receive something. Yes, the virtual web platform says its free, but the cost is that if something goes wrong the user is likely to tell me about it. That way I can be assured the platform is fully tested when it comes time to apply for government certifications. Did you happen to read the articles before you deleted them? If so you should know who your talking to, so don't patronize me with your claims of not being an employee. So they don't pay you directly... That doesn't mean your not getting paid. What would I have received if you didn't delete the article which I posted for free? I was expecting an editor re-write and a more independent review of my donations to the internet. It is impossible to get an honest review from people who depend on your services so what better forum than an open encyclopedia. In all... its your loss, when people start searching for the information on Wikipedia it won't be found, and when it is finally found I'll sue for copyright infringement. Rritoch (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who are you threatening to sue? Anyone searching the internet, Wikipedia or me? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fae... What I'm saying is that if I find the Virtual Web Platform application and/or the VNet Publishing project listed at Wikipedia in the future, I will bring it to my lawyer to sue for copyright infringement. Unlike most people, I actually have an attorney to protect me. It will be for my attorney to decide who gets sued. If that were to take place, you would only be named for irritating me by flagging my initial articles for deletion. All of the work on my web sites are copyrighted in such a way that only the entire content may be reused in its unmodified state, which means any article about the project or application can be considered copyright infringement. Since I'm the copyright holder, I can write whatever I want because you can't steal from yourself. I hope this clarifies the issue. Rritoch (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fae, this guy is hilarious. YOU WON'T LET ME USE WIKIPEDIA AS AN ADVERT FOR MY OWN PRODUCT? I'LL SUE YOU. IT'S YOUR LOSS, MR. WIKIPEDIAS!!!1 Heh. --Tom Morris (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, do you understand English? You have it reversed. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE MY PRODUCTS ON WIKIPEDIA, EVER!! If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, please mind your own business. Rritoch (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fae, It is my opinion that this issue has been resolved. I just want to wish you Happy Holidays. Do not take any of this personally. If you had read the articles and done some research before you deleted them you would have seen that it was not an advertisement, or for a something which is not notable. I suppose the conflict of interest does apply in this case, but that is not what you cited as the reason for deletion which makes a big difference. If anything, I'm sure this conversation will make you a better editor in the future. Rritoch (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks and holiday good wishes to you. If you feel the need to "sue Wikipedia" in the future, you can find an appropriate address to write to at wmf:Contact_us, in the meantime try to avoid threatening to do so on Wikipedia as this invariably leads to your account being locked as a precaution against sub judice complications. Alternatively if you want to make a more general complaint or to ask for some independent advice on how Wikipedia policies might help you do what you want to do, I suggest you try WP:Help desk. Fæ (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Punjab International Public School

Hi Fae, when you come across articles like this could you please remove the fake Featured Article listing and leave a message on the Pakistan project page. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

Not sure I understand the rationale for everything you did on that talk page. I overlooked the blatantly fake FA class, but I'm not sure why you would want to remove {{blpo}} or the helpful find box, is there a policy based reason for these removals? Fæ (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertently, just like I forgot to sign the post above ;) Don't worry, these things happen. But we can't allow editors to promote their stubs to FA, that almost deserves a block for vandalism.

--Kudpung (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick

Thanks.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

With all due respect, you can be a little more polite when messaging other editors. If I make a mistake, I can fix it, but I do not appreciate hostile posts on my talk page, so kindly do not do it again. I'm removing your message as it is not pleasant to me. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am comfortable that leaving a note rather than templating you with a standard user warning after you added a blatantly self-published unreliable source and re-added a long unsourced list I previously removed on the same article was quite civil. I am glad to hear that you might fix your mistakes, but it is a lot healthier not to make them in the first place rather than relying on using everyone else's time tidying up after you. Fæ (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)