Jump to content

User talk:Fæ/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Input

Thanks for asking Fæ, Ive been bold and redone it.... I tried to put a DYK "hook" into the lede. Please feel free to ignore/improve/delete. If you like it then I would polish it up and add missing pics/ links etc Victuallers (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, Charles has confirmed that he's looking for a 'Canteen viewpoint' to supplement pieces by Liam et al, so I guess the scope is pretty open. I'll try polishing a little over the next day without expanding it that much as there probably will be quite a bit of text in the newsletter anyway. I don't believe we have a photo of Matthew anywhere but I'll ponder images we have collected over the year to illustrate the your suggestion. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I forget to add you to my watch list and missed the reply. Still I'm assuming its all agreed and fine. I think their may be a poor pic of Matthew from the backstage pass day - or I'll just ask hime for one! Victuallers (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

reliable source

if ndtv and other english news channels are reliable sources why not sun network's dinakaran ?

SyberGod (chat) 16:01, 12 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

To be frank, I am rather tired of sweeping up the unverifiable unreliable references that are continually added to Enthiran and List of highest grossing Indian films. Both articles have been repeatedly protected for the same reason of over-inflated box-office income figures being added by lobbyists or fans. If you want to argue the case (again) for this particular source on either talk page I suggest you raise a RFC and I'll be happy to comply with the outcome or possibly just take these articles off my watch-list as too much of a time hog. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks and Done SyberGod (chat)

No response yet !!! SyberGod (chat)

Such RfCs often run for 30 days and considering the holidays, you might expect the first reply to take a day or two. Fæ (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

oh ya i get it :)

SyberGod (chat)

Interested?

Fae, I was very impressed by our work at the British Museum etc and I was thinking that if we can have that effect on a big museum then what effect could we have on a small one? So as I live near Derby Museum I approached them. I now have support from them and Wikimedia UK with a joint press release in progress that I'm hoping will make the 10th birthday fuss next week. I am intending to do it as professionally as Matthew and Liam did. I'm looking for "partners in crime"? I'm working on the principle "that if you build it, they will come". You know all the tasks that will need to be done - I was thinking about the task of cloning all "BM related" project stuff as a task. Does this appeal? Victuallers (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to help out with supporting the project. Based on your request I have just created WP:GLAM/DER (or WP:GLAMDER) as a top level (draft) coordination page under GLAM, let me know what other components would be useful upfront (such as a photo request sub-page, to-do list or a project member userbox). Once it is a bit more formed it might be an idea to put a pointer to it at WP:MUSEUM. Note that though I'm not going to be in Derby in the near future, I am taking part in the British Library Editathon on 14-15 January, so let me know if there is anything that might be usefully called up and verified from their catalogue. Fæ (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant job, all those sub pages you mentioned sound useful - our link curator is putting together a list of curators wanting wikipedeans with subjects. We will need a commons cat and there are maybe a dozen - 2 dozen articles that need clicking as project related. I'm hoping to be able to show before and after as we did with the BM in terms of article qual/ntity. The press release will be available for the editathon and you will have some influential wikipedans there. Obviously I know that not many editors come from Derby but Derby is very close to several of the (arguable) centres of England/Britain. What effect can GLAM have have on a small museum and art gallery? Can you encourage them that its worth "getting the car out". A back stage tour is available and although they are mothballing one museum they will open it up for us. (I'm particularly interesting in finding editors who can edit in some of Derby's multicultural languages like Tamil, Urdu, Polish etc). Anyway - thank you, you're the first editor asked and the first to say Yes. Thx. Victuallers (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll bring it up as the latest GLAM initiative needing support during the BL workshop. The current category is Category:Collections of Derby Museum and Art Gallery, so any related articles can and ought to be added there. The press release will be a help and I suggest adding a link to it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums#GLAM_initiative_for_Derby where I have added an introductory note (though the talk page seems a bit quiet to be honest). Fæ (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Selective Deletions of the Truth Tree by Fae

Why are you deleting all external links on Wikipedia to http://www.truthtree.com/ , without exception, regardless of the article, author, or content? It seems to me that the policy being quoted, "Authoritative Source," is being selectively enforced against The Truth Tree and not against any other sites. A case in point would be "Cannabis Foods." Why do the dozen-or-so other external links on that page pass the Wikipedia policy for "Authoritative Source?" (Who, indeed, would be an authoritative source on the subject of cannabis foods, other than possibly Michael Pollan?) I have read in full the policy referenced. The criteria for "Authoritative Source" are very high indeed, which may serve to exclude a great many sites in the External Links section. Indeed, there are probably only a few hundred individuals in the world that are qualified to write for Wikipedia at all. No doubt one should delete the entire contents of the overwhelming majority of articles, in order to have truly authoritative sources. Rules are rules, after all. Perhaps you should enlist an army of volunteers to help you in your task of deletions. Isn't that what Wikipedia needs--less content?

I note that an original scan of a handwritten letter by Sigmund Freud was taken without permission or indeed any notice at all from The Truth Tree and posted on Wikipedia. Now the Truth Tree's external link on the Sigmund Freud page was recently removed by someone else (not you), along with all other links, apparently. So, I must ask this of you, on Wikipedia, is it considered acceptable to steal from a web site, but not to feed it any traffic in return? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorbitol (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.truthtree.com fails several of the criteria defined at WP:ELNO, the most obvious being #10 as it defines itself as a discussion forum. As for your point about a scan of an original Freud letter, you are free to request image deletion if you feel there is a breach of copyright against the interests of Freud's estate (I have no particular opinion on the matter as I have not seen any such image). I have deleted the link from more than one article as I believe that arbitrary inclusion across different articles with no rationale for this website being directly relevant to the article content is effective spamming or, in your words, "directing traffic" to the website presumably in line with the site's mission statement. The relevant guideline is WP:SOAP. Should you feel you have a case that your website meets the guidelines I suggest you start by getting some independent feedback at the External Links Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As for other external links in articles, I would be happy to see more deleted which you feel do not meet the guidelines, the fact that other sites are poor examples of external links is not a rationale to keep links to your website. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example of this: "I have deleted the link from more than one article as I believe that arbitrary inclusion across different articles with no rationale for this website being directly relevant to the article content..." Please cite the specific link and the article. I have not read every page on Wikipedia, so it is possible that there might have been such a case. If that is indeed the case, then your deletion would be justified, and indeed I would do so myself, being a constant user of Wikipedia.

The Truth Tree does not define itself as a discussion forum. All external links to the Truth Tree, at least the ones I have seen, are not to the forum, but to the Truth Tree, which encompasses much more than forums. Wikipedia contains forums too. Is any site that contains forums, then, to be banned from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia to be banned from Wikipedia? That may be a difficult task, Fae. I am wondering what your real motives for deleting links to the Truth Tree might be. Perhaps you could elaborate upon them.

Here is one of the links that was deleted: http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml , at "Debate," deleted by Fae on the grounds that "there is no rationale for the website being directly relevant to the article content." Am I mistaken? Perhaps there was another reason for the deletion. Enlighten me. It may be helpful to read the biography of the writer.

The guidelines referred to above are clear enough and I have no desire to rehash the existing consensus. I have raised this website at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#truthtree.com for independent opinions and you are welcome to raise your case there. I note that the majority of your contributions to Wikipedia have been to add links to truthtree.com, I can recommend you carefully review the guidelines of WP:COI and WP:SPA. I also suggest you desist from making accusations about me being on a mission against your website in edit comments, these cannot easily be removed afterwards and are likely to be seen as a failure to be civil or to assume good faith. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You have responded to none of the points that were raised, Fae. Did you even read what I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorbitol (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fair to ask why you have made it your mission to delete links to the Truth Tree, because you have deleted many--claiming, above, that they bear no relevance to the articles. How could you have come upon so many links by accident? You are clearly on a "search and destroy" mission, and my question is, simply, why. -Sorbitol (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#truthtree.com seems unambiguously to support my deletions. As suggested on the noticeboard, further additions may result in the website being blacklisted. Your claims about my edits are neither true nor welcome though you are free to follow any of the processes at WP:DR if you still want to complain about me. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

hey it not advertisment just detail about that bank where i had commit mistake u may explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perumalnadar (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Copying text directly from http://www.tnmbonline.com/a_profile.htm is a copyright violation. In this particular case it was also non-neutral including phrases such as "In all these locations you can send your cheques for collection too. All at no extra cost." which would need re-writing to avoid appearing to be promotional. These problems can be avoided by citing independent sources for the information you wish to add. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi there! pls do not delete The Burning of Rice Fields,Hamaguchi because some of our neighbor and pupil reaserced it if you want to see the page source you may look -- http:djninopalarin.yolasite.com -- Source of the page.ThanksDolor285 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be nonsense and the website you reference appears to be a personal site attempting to raise cash. If you have a rationale to keep this article please take it up on the article discussion page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

INFO

Halo is this a proper source that could be added http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/100-crores-for-magadheera/

I think the factual accuracy will be increased with contributions in the coming days (Babyboy33 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)).

Why would you think that someone's blog would be a reliable source for definitive published statements of box-office income? Fæ (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

HALO

Article edit privilege requested for highest grossing indian films article.

MY NAME IS KHAN MUST PROBABLY BE REPLACED WITH OTHER FILM IN THE FIRST TEN LIST LIST NEEDS TO BE REARRANGED

EDIT PRIVILEGE REQUESTED WITH STRONG VIGILANCE

(Babyboy33 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

If you are asking for edit permission for an edit restricted article, semi-protected articles can be edited by newer users once their account is auto-confirmed. As you already have enough edits to qualify, this will happen for your account once it is more than 4 days old. I have no authority to over-ride the automatic process. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit privilege requested - " my name is khan " must be replaced in highest grossing indian films with another. my name is khan becomes 11th in place of 6th new entry

thank you

EDIT option requested for few days. (Babyboy33 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).


GOT IT Thank you for the message (Babyboy33 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

DYK

Looks good although it may fail DYK as text looks too short (I may be wrong). You need 1500 chars of pure well referenced text. Pictures, captions, tables and bullets don't count. Suggest you might like to rephrase some of the bullets as prose. Make sure you have a ref per para. Well done Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions thanks. It's uphill work as I'm no philatelist! Fæ (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:ISBN 9780712309530.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ISBN 9780712309530.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Redlabel337

hi! stop adding "citation", are you hater Steaua Bucharest? like all this who made acts of vandalism?


STOP ADDING CITATION, OK? u dont need citation for old writing. dont make me swear you!!! it was about his career when he was a little. do you think now we add citation to older writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlabel337 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

alleged advertising

Hi, I only gave credit to the source of the image, it is not an advertisement, I'm just protecting my images. (re: paenibacillus wiki page) Paenigenome (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Also, wanted to add, that I'm rather new to this, so I kept on revising it this morning because at first I didn't realise where my links are gone. Sorry about that. Paenigenome (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The normal style for articles is not to credit images inline with their use, but to leave full license and credits on the specific image page (which all images automatically link to). See WP:CREDITS for the guideline. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry again. How can I tell if the licence details is viewable to other users too? When I click the images it seems as though it does tell the source but I'm not sure... could you maybe have a look and let me know? Paenigenome (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Looking at File:Paenibacillus_genus1.jpg by clicking on its image in Paenibacillus shows the author as "Credit: Prof. Eshel Ben-Jacob". If you want to see a more direct attribution and tie this into the license conditions, I suggest you change the current license used in the Permissions parameter of the information box. This would mean that it is absolutely unambiguous how you want to be credited if the image is used in other publications (such as websites, academic papers or other people's books). This is what you would change on the image page File:Paenibacillus_genus1.jpg:
|Permission= {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}

becomes: 

|Permission= {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|<Your name, your website or any other attribution text you want embedded in the license>}}
Fæ (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK

I've just re at Everwild's DYK --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

re again --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Quaid

I've removed your prod from this article as someone added a hangon tag to it, which although the wrong process, makes it pretty clear the prod is opposed. You may want to consider an AfD but as this is an area I know very little about I wouldn't feel comfortable starting one myself. Dpmuk (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I took this to AfD and instantly regretted it, now withdrawn. There is a mention of hurlers in ATH and the guidance means that they can be a non-notable newbie in the team and still be considered notable. Ugh, having to eat my own words is so unpalatable. Fæ (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like another over the top athlete guideline to me but its very existence does mean the AfD is likely to result in a keep so I can understand you withdrawing it. That guideline is also why I wasn't happy AfDing myself as although I didn't know it existed it was the sort of thing I could believe might exist. Dpmuk (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Everwild

What do you think would be a good hook for this novel? Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply here. Thanks, --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you are trying hard on this one. I'll take another look later today, just about to have Sunday lunch here. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Am about to do the same (having Sunday lunch) :D BTW have you read the book? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't read the book, so my viewpoint is as a non-expert uninvolved with the topic. I have searched around a bit more and I cannot find any news items (apart from the normal reviews) that related to the book or any awards. At this point I feel that you may be better off improving the Neal Shusterman article and getting it further up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature quality scale, in particular adding a section about his writing under his "Easton Royce" nom de plume as subjects like the X-Files are very well covered, see The X-Files literature, and improving the general sourcing of the author article as it tends to over-rely on self-published sources. My conclusion is that I can't think of a decent DYK hook for this book, though you may want to ask for further suggestions on the DYK talk page. Sorry this one has not worked out better for your effort. Fæ (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Problem with DYK is that unless the article is EXTREMELY short or new there is pratically no chance... because of the 5x clause. Its hard to expand an already long article 5x :/ --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Start new topic

I suggest you link Newtopics to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User%3AFetchcomms%2FInputBox&editintro=&preloadtitle=Type+message+title+here&section=new&title=User+talk:Fæ as it loads an already signed topic :D --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perkins printing press

Can you or one of your British Library pals take a freely licenced replacement photo for File:Perkins D cylinder Printing Press.jpg that is being used under a fair-use claim but has been put up for deletion because a replaceable image can be made? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a note on WP:GLAM/BL, though as it happens I found a temporary replacement on Flickr and uploaded it at File:Perkins D cylinder printing press in the British Library.jpg. I'm planning on going into the Library on Tuesday, so I'll see if I can make my own shot and if that gets better results (though it is on display in a rather busy area now compared to when this photo was taken).
It's a shame the image has been ignored since it was uploaded years ago and it gets nominated for deletion the night before the DYK is going on the main page, but probably no coincidence. Fæ (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I replaced all other instances with the one you found. If you do make a better photo, please replace all the current uses. Time is no friend of fair-use review; though people are getting more observant, especially of older material that may no longer comply with all 10 WP:NFCC. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry

Excuse me: I did a mistake. I wanted translate for Wikipedia ans I confused all. 90.13.43.22 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you may want to help with Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Fæ (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

Fae, You are not supposed to change the citation style unilaterally. Apart from anything else it makes the article harder to expand if the editor is not used to the new style. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As the notes were at the time all cross-references to the sources section, putting in anchors seems a sensible thing to do. This could be done without using {{citation}} or {{harvnb}} but this is far more likely to be incomprehensible to any newcomer. Happy to have this under discussion on the talk page for a consensus view, though I suggest avoiding a roll-back whilst the DYK is running (if we are talking about that particular article).
BTW, I have raised a request on Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Image requests for the related image, though I'm not sure what Mike Peel had agreed about potentially requesting such things directly from the BL. It might be a good example to take forward as a precedent due to the benefit this would give to the article quality. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I arranged with Richard from the BL to raise this internally. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You may mean someone else but the IS/IT guy seems to be the default general point of contact, his name Richard (tall, in his 20s and came along to the pub afterwards). Fæ (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Richard! Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Brand Cycle Development (BCD)

Hello. I've had enough of feeding the troll on the article's talk page, but will be happy to support you in an AFD if speedy is declined. Thanks, Borkificator (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think the creator has had enough advice and adding the review of current sources was enough of a demonstration of AGF on my part. I'll be taking the DNFTT approach and just keep an eye on the article until someone makes a decision about the speedy. Fæ (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy was not declined, thank you very much. I also left a notice for the editor, and took the liberty of copying your last reply from the BCD talk page to the user's talk page - it said what I was going to say much better than I was going to. I'll keep an eye on this user, as well. Thanks, both of you, for being so patient with this... problematic user. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding your comment about the inter-wiki links. I just put them there as an attempt to provide further reading (not reliable source type references) about a number of persons featured on a very difficult issue of stamps from 1945. (Some of the people on the set of stamps, which appears to have been one of the first sets issued by the Communist administration, are not even notable enough for articles on Hungarian Wikipedia let alone English Wikipedia). I do not speak Hungarian and had immense trouble finding out this information, which is part of why I would have preferred someone with knowledge of Hungary and the Hungarian language to have been doing this work. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it was not intended as a dig at anyone in particular. I suggest that you might want to add such links as either external links or a list on the talk page just to make sure nobody confuses them with citations in their own right. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I didn't take it as a dig anyway but as it was I who had added the interwiki links I thought I should explain. I had tried to just show them as links but couldn't get them to work that way. After seeing how you linked to them I realised I was missing out the first colon in each link so used that as a basis to recreate what I tried to do in the first place and it seems to have worked (now the interwiki links are not references at all and I've piped each of them to say "in Hungarian"). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Help:Interlanguage links is the relevant guide to point to; I like the way you have done this in the article, it makes sense and is a good starting point for creating the red-linked articles. Fæ (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

British Library Philatelic Collections/GA1

Shall resume tomorrow. I don't think the concluding formalities will delay us long. You can spot a good article at twenty paces, and the preliminary niggling is important but quality will out. Tim riley (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Tourism in Alderney

Hello, I have responded to the concerns you raised at the DYK nomination for this article. Are you able to take a second look at all? Thanks, Arctic Night 13:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get onto it. Fæ (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of DigitalRev TV

I found the repeat marking of the above article for speedy deletion slightly hostile given that I have clearly improved on the original author's entry by signaling the significance of the subject. At least you should have provided your counter view on why the improved article still didn't meet Wikipedia standard, before deleting it. I have seen entries on unimportant books, yet the most subscribed photography show - one that is category defining - is considered insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unproexpert (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not intended to be hostile. You can ask the deleting admin (Kim Dent-Brown) to save a working draft in your userspace if you strongly feel that there is a prospect of the article meeting WP:Notability (organizations and companies) in the near future. As for non-notable books, yes there are an appalling number of book articles that fail to meet WP:BK, just as there has been on biographies of living people, there may well be a purge of these at some point. Remember that articles are considered on their own merit rather than in comparison with other (possibly poor) articles, see What about article x?. Fæ (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas James Wise

Interesting article. My father had a copy of Carter and Pollard's book, which I read years ago; I don't know what happened to it. As far as I remember, they assembled all the evidence, but made no direct accusation, just ended with something like " ...at this point we laid the results of our enquiries before Mr Wise", but didn't give any comment from him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you are in the BL researching other stuff, it is worth taking out the Maggs book. It is about 14 pages of typed pages with his memories of events (nicely leather bound). It explains how close their families were, the scandal of Wise's divorce and how much Wise would make buying and selling books (at times at least 10x his investment), unfortunately none of which is really encyclopaedic enough for me to add to the article. I think Wise was such a well liked chap that nobody had the guts to finish him off in the courts. Pretty lucky as doubtless this would have led to the break-up of his library to pay costs. I find it telling that the sum the British Museum paid for the library has never been published though speculation in the press seems to imply that it must have been impressive. Fæ (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:Changing an AfD nomination after people have given opinions

First I would like to thank you for assuming good faith in writing to me. That is very refreshing. That said. I read every drop of the policy you sent me, and it really didn't apply to anything I've ever done here at wikipedia, so I was at a loss as to its relevance to why you wanted me to revert my comments at the AfD, but to quote the summary of the policy at the top of the section, it says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request." AfD doesn't take place on a talk page, so it automatically doesn't apply. But even if I did, I have not touched anyone else's comments at all. I have only modified my own comments ("the user"). Regardless, I'm not really taking this matter personally. Best wishes on your future edits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The matter has arisen in several AfDs I have been involved in. AfD is a discussion like any other and should comply with the rules of WP:TALK. If you are refusing to revert your changes to the nomination I will ask for an independent administrator to advise you and strike my opinion expressed in that AfD in the interim, on the basis that my opinion was based on the original nomination rather than a version that you may choose to revise from time to time. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You actually can change your vote as much as you want. As articles progress and/or discussion expands, editors often change their vote to the new circumstances/information. Change away :) An admin, however, cannot change or modify your vote, nor you comment. That's against policy (unless it contains racism, child porn, etc... which I don't think is the case here.)--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 06:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

River Oaks Baptist School

Last month you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. The requester says that it isn't just a primary school, it's a middle school as well, but I doubt if that brings it within WP:NHS. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe you are correct in that the consensus is that Middle Schools do not meet NHS. Off the top of my head I can't remember where I saw that. I struggle with these definitions as Middle Schools seem to have a rather fluid definition depending on country and particularly for special types of school. I'll revisit though it can happily stew on my back-burner. Fæ (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't re-PROD, see WP:PROD#Objecting. It now has to go to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, must be tired, I was on automatic. Converted over to AfD. Fæ (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I just found some interesting stuff about River Oaks Baptist having to change its e-mail archiving system. That stuff has significant coverage too... WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll be surprised if it would be sufficient to address the significant impact required by WP:ORG but certainly worth having a go. Fæ (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what else I can find. WP:ORG says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." - After reviewing the page, I determined that, as per WP:ORG, the article about off-site e-mailing archive gives significant independent coverage to ROBS. Hopefully I'll find more articles like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Friends of the Five Creeks

Can you help me out here? The AfD was done wrong and I have a lot of sources, etc.Thisbites (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a PROD which anyone can remove. I have removed it as if anyone is desperately keen to delete they can raise a full AfD which then has appropriate discussion. In theory it should not have an AfD as the issue is a potential merge, I would also be against a merge as the target article would be about the place and this article is about an organization and so has quite a different rationale. Added an infobox and a few project headers which I suggest you review. You may want to ask the group if they would make some of their photos full free use (they appear commercially restricted at the moment) so they can be uploaded to Commons and illustrate the article.
The stumbling block will be the "national" part of the WP:CLUB criteria. There may be an argument about "Factors that have attracted widespread attention" (part of the CLUB criteria) but this might better apply to the parent organization (Berkeley Partners for Parks) and there may be an interesting move to create the parent article and then merge this daughter organization into it, with the benefit of saying something about all the other daughter organizations. In any event, nobody can claim to be suffering damage while the article exists, so there should be plenty of time allowed for improvement, discussion and consensus before major changes are made. Fæ (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is at AfD now =(, any advice for Pacific East Mall and Pacific Center for Human Growth by the way? Thisbites (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If notability is questioned I would look carefully at the whole of WP:ORG rather than the sub-sections (such as WP:CLUB) that people automatically point to. If any organization can be argued to satisfy the Primary criteria then it is notable. I would also balance this against the Local chapters section which considers merging subsidiary articles on sub-organizations to the parent. This last option is no great disaster as it may in the long term lead to a good quality article that can more easily evolve over time with enough interested editors to keep it up to date. Lastly remember that Userfication is always an option and takes the hassle out of having to argue a marginal case for notability when with a few weeks in draft form you might be able to make the case completely unambiguous. Personally I find WP:CLUB pretty hard-line as it can sometimes be easier to justify a tiny commercial organization that happens to have paid for national press attention rather than a not for profit that turns out to be historically important but local in nature. If stuck, remember that articles about geographical places can be as small as you like, hence the tendency for articles about shopping malls and tiny villages in India to be un-deletable just because they can be found on Google Maps.
As for both the articles you mention, they look reasonable to me, though more national/international sources would help. Mentions in journals and national magazines are often helpful. Fæ (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What's the best way to find them.Thisbites (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Fæ (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate some feedback. A reply to your note.

Hi there. Just trying to edit my page so as to create an acceptable product for post on wiki. My last edit was marked for deletion b/c i didn't explain the significance of the bio. I was in the edit process however, and someone flagged it w/in 5 minutes of me getting oriented w/ the whole publishing process. I took your advice and created a work-in-progress page, and was hoping you could help me determine what else I would need to avoid that CSD A7 violation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJMIXX305/DjMixx — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJMIXX305 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

International Dunhuang Project

Hi Fæ,

I'm thinking of nominating International Dunhuang Project for GA, but not sure if it's up to standard yet, so wondered if you would mind taking a look at it and letting me know what you think. My one concern is that it is pretty much single-sourced to the IDP website or the IDP newsletter, but there is nothing much useful about the IDP in any external reliable sources that I have been able to find. Thanks, BabelStone (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem I'll give it a once over, probably tomorrow, and drop some notes on the talk page as a preliminary pre-GA discussion. I've been absorbed in other things but I always feel slightly guilty for not doing a couple of GA reviews as part of the backlog, it just seems like such hard work! Fæ (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have pasted some alternative sources to the IDP talk page. Fæ (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments and list of possible sources. After the debacle of my last GA nomination I'm a little hesitant about putting forward this article, so I do appreciate your help. Looking through the possible sources, the only one available on JSTOR that looks promising is this one (the first on the list as it happens), but as I don't have JSTOR access, if you could send me a pdf (babelstone at gmail.com) it would be great. Searching Google Books also finds a few notices in academic journals about the IDP, from which I might be able to get a sound bite or two. Incidentally, I have heard from the IDP folk at the BL that they are thinking of doing a week long editing event, inviting participation from IDP partners across the globe as well as any interested wikipedians. BabelStone (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

InterRidge

Hi I changed the Username to Deborah Milton this morning, so hopefully this will be OK soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterRidge (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, it may take a few days for your request to get through. If you do get blocked it may be worth noting on your talk page that your request has been raised and you are just waiting for it to get processed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Review a proposed article due to COI?

Hello! I am writing on behalf of my employer, because we would like to create a page for our reference management program, Citavi, which is established in the German market, but is new in English. In the past, my boss's edits to the article Comparison of reference management software were reverted due to a) conflict of interest and b) lack of an article to link to. We think it's only fair that our product be listed in WP, just as many newer and less-established competing products are, but we want to do it correctly and transparently. This is why I am asking for your help. :)

I have created a draft article at User:Tooki/Citavi (per the WP guidelines for creating an article when a conflict of interest exists), and would love if you could take a look at it and make changes or comments as necessary. The article is based largely on the German WP article, but shortened.

Once the main Citavi article is "live", we would like to re-add Citavi to the comparison page.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance and advice you can provide. -- tooki (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll add a note about any issues to your user talk page depending on whether Karnesky makes any comment first. In the meantime you may wish to view the opinions at WP:RFC/PAID about the topic of paid editing. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the incredibly quick response. That link is quite interesting, indeed. It seems to revolve primarily around people selling services as WP editors. In my case, I'm an employee, not an outsourced "hitman" editor (as the "parody" comment on that page might call it). Our goal isn't to influence what is said about our product, but simply to establish a presence on WP, as other programs have done. Regardless, we want all our edits to be in good faith and completely transparent (I've added my affiliation to my user page) -- I don't want to step on toes, nor endanger my WP editing reputation. Regards, tooki (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Interridge site

Hi As I have changed my username and added footnotes, is the InterRidge entry now OK? If so, how/when does the orange alert banner at the top disappear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Milton (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the COI tag, though if you have an employment or other strong connection with InterRidge it still ought to apply. The other tags relate to the quality of content and these can be discussed on the article talk page to reach a consensus as to whether they still apply or to specify what additional improvement is required. Both remaining notices seem relevant as there are claims made without direct citations that probably do need such citations and though the article is not a blatant failure of WP:NPOV, it probably is worth discussing a bit further. Fæ (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Delius

I have no reason to suppose that the composer Delius might be of the slightest interest to you, but having lately endured my scrutiny of the BL Philatelic Collections at GA you might conceivably be willing to comment at the FAC for this article which User:Brianboulton and I have just put forward for FA. Will quite understand if you are not interested, but most grateful for any comments you are moved to make. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a peek but will steer clear if I can only think of unintelligent comments to make as I'm no expert on composers or music history and so would be limited to weight, layout, stability etc. Fæ (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, absolutely. More on the BL article in a few days' time? Happy to do the honours. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Much food for thought from your comments, and we have definitely improved the article in the light of them. I recall that we rather locked horns over the referencing question for the Noël Coward article a while ago. I remain strongly agin changing existing formatting of GA/FA articles, but I am planning to overhaul the Benjamin Britten article some time this year, and I am wholly open to persuasion that one or other reference format would improve that article before I get it to FAC. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this at some point. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I did a mini survey of GLAM related FA articles (using a script) and roughly 75%+ use the citation templates but I have not sampled how many use the Harvard style templates. I might return to researching this a little more if a few statistics will help sway opinions as to what is most common practice and most helpful to the layman reader (as opposed to firm guidelines). I'm sure we all have our favourite styles and we probably should allow room to agree to disagree in these areas rather than see it as an "issue" that needs a "solution". Fæ (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR complaint about Enthiran

Hello Fæ. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fæ reported by User:Wangond (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know it was going on. With 7,500 pages on my watchlist it would be easy to overlook. Link to result. Fæ (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas)

There seems to be a habitual section blanking problem here, likely with representatives from the school, what can I do to protect the page?Thisbites (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is frequent enough, then you can request semi-protection at WP:RPP (it is quite easy to do). However looking at the history, the vandalism is not at the level normally accepted for protection which would have to be sustained and frequent (like every day for a week or every few minutes in the last hour). Fæ (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

InterRidge site

hi I have cited 3 more areas - 2nd Decade, Gakkel Ridge, South West Indian Ridge. Hoping this is sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Milton (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is looking a lot better with more sources. It needs a bit of formatting, you may find MOS worth having a browse through. Fæ (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Prod of Alejandro Puga

I removed the prod tag you placed on Alejandro Puga, as the article was at VfD in 2005. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no comment on the merits of deletion and no prejudice against another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I overlooked the notice for some reason. I'll move on to AfD considering the history. Fæ (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

British Library GA candidate

I see you have this listed for GA candidacy. I'm happy to review it, but having just done so for your article on the philatelic collections I hesitate to barge in again. Perhaps better if another editor undertakes this one, but if no-one else does so I am available to do it. You may like to let me know in due course. Tim riley (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, perhaps we ought to give it a few days to see if anyone else is prepared to pick it up? It would be nice to get it under way within a reasonable time in order to keep momentum for the collaboration; of course, it would be another milestone to demonstrate back to the BL some of the benefits of supporting the edit-a-thon and hopefully future events. Fæ (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I shall be away for a week beginning on the coming Monday (7th Feb), with little access to the internet. I am free all day tomorrow, however, and will gladly do a GA review if you think it timely and appropriate for me to do so. Please let me know. Tim riley (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That seems sensible and proper. I'll do the first pass tomorrow and leave a suitable note if we haven't finalised things by close of play. There is an internet café in Keswick, whither I am bound, and I'll no doubt be looking in from time to time. Tim riley (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Initial comments now posted. Over to you! Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Fae I've added some formatting to the InterRidge site. If there is anything particular, please let me know. Otherwiase, please will you pass it and remove the banner at the top of the site please!! Thanks Debbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Milton (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby Museum

I have a very keen curator who wants to see if we can use these QR codes. I havent got your script working yet. I'm out tonight but off work tomorrow. As a backup .... it it possible to create QR codes of

List

  1. John Whitehurst Whitehurst QR
  2. John Farey Farey QR
  3. White Watson Watson QR
  4. John Mawe Mawe QR
  5. Hippopotamus QR
  6. Allenton Hippopotamus Hippopotamus QR
  7. Straight-tusked_Elephant Elephant QR
  8. Narrow-nosed Rhinoceros Rhinoceros QR
  9. Fluorescence QR
  10. Fossils QR
  11. Rocks QR
  12. Mineral QR
  13. Basalt QR
  14. Magnesian Limestone QR
  15. Sherwood Sandstone (geology) QR
  16. Mercian Mudstone marl QR
  17. Glacial Till clay QR
  18. River Deposits gravel QR
  19. Stalagmite QR
  20. Coal Measure Sandstone QR
  21. Millstone Grit Sandstone Grit QR
  22. Coal QR
  23. Shale QR
  24. Carboniferous Limestone (lagoon) limestone QR
  25. Carboniferous Limestone (reef) limestone QR

Continued...

I think could be really cool. Ideally I can get the script working but I don't want to rely on this as it may not work for me ... I think we are doing something novel and we have full permission to "just do it"

regards 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a peek at User:Victuallers/vector.js and you have some complex functions there that might 'touch' the same areas of the page and stop the script working. I had similar problems which made running it inconsistent. I suggest you try adding it to the bottom of the vector.js page (or whatever skin is chosen in user preferences) with the addOnloadHook exactly as typed below which ensures that it runs on final page load (this forced the script to work consistently for me):
addOnloadHook(function(){
  importScript('User:Fæ/QRcode.js'); //QRcode on toolbar
}
);

—Fæ (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, with Rock drum having problems getting the script working it'll probably need another pair of eyes looking over it to de-bug before we can recommend it. It's working okay for me but maybe that's because of other things I have installed. I think we can explain that we could enable a script but in practice for most collaborations or projects I think a variation of {{QR code}} would probably be the best way of demonstrating the feature and a good way of generating lists of links for images to print out without the complication of explaining how to install scripts.
exclamation mark  PPS - I just realized that User:Victuallers/vector.js has code from a GreaseMonkey script for Google Books citations, you need to strip that out as it will only work using GreaseMonkey and I suspect it is breaking every other scripts you have there. Fæ (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I have also created {{User:Fæ/QR list}} as a quick way of listing up to 20 50 articles with QR codes with a single template call. If useful for project lists we can always release this as an alternative. Example; {{User:Fæ/QR list|Ernest Townsend|White Watson|John Whitehurst|Joseph Whittaker (botanist)|Joseph Wright of Derby}} generates:
  1. Ernest Townsend Townsend QR
  2. White Watson Watson QR
  3. John Whitehurst Whitehurst QR
  4. Joseph Whittaker (botanist) Whittaker (botanist) QR
  5. Joseph Wright of Derby Wright of Derby QR

—Fæ (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've edited some oif the links, and removed a few others that were just heading from the list Victualers sent you. I'll work on the others later. This sounds exciting stuff.Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ashley Library, Thomas James Wise

Hello! Your submission of Ashley Library at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BabelStone (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, could you send me the Times pages for the citations, thanks. BabelStone (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do, just double checking which source actually said 90 leaves (the Times appears to give a detailed early breakdown instead), probably Maggs. I am going to the BL today so I may be able to add a quotation. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just added an alternative, probably better than Magg's personal statement. Fæ (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, got the images now. BabelStone (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That's good new source -- I have now OK'd the DYK. BabelStone (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding highest grossing telugu films wiki article

1. The list of highest gorssing telugu films has its own significance as that of Highest gorssing tamil films and highest grossing hindi film articles.

2. Telugu , Tamil and Hindi are three interconnectd large film businesses in India.

3. Since one of the two highets gorssing indian films are under production of geetha arts - there is immense significance for the telugu language highest grossing films to be continued and maiantained in wikipedia. It will be difficult to create another article, if this is not being standardized on wikipedia.

4. I request your kind self in erasing the deletion tag based on above rationale. 

(Kesinenimurthy (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)).

Further, I request your kind self to semi protect the article for selected editors as this article needs more additional references I am in the process of adding published sources - infact this article has good references than highest gorssing tamil films article, I guess I request your kind self for removal of deletion tag to this article, as it is an essential article.

(Kesinenimurthy (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)).

I am in full support of the improvement and expansion of Telugu language related articles as part of improving the representation of non-English culture on the English Wikipedia. Ranked lists of this type are highly commercial and need unambiguous and verifiable sources to demonstrate the claims being made about these entertainment products. If the Indian film industry has no independent body assessing box-office income statements then any quoted figure must be considered suspect and subject to possible manipulation by promoters.
As an example, in your most recent change (diff), you re-added 3 citations, none of which mentions the 118 crore claimed in the table, two of which are to scans of the same magazine (quoting 115 crore but it is not clear what the official source is for this figure) and the third reference (Times of India) does not mention any figures. Consequently the figure given has sources which are actively misleading as they do not support that number and my point is that the situation is representative of the article in general.
For page protection, you can raise a request at WP:RPP, however the level of vandalism seems relatively quiet at the moment and so this would probably be rejected. Note, it should be made clear that I'm not an admin and so have no power to protect the article myself or to decide to close down a controversial AfD once it has been raised.
You are free to continue to disagree and make your case, but I recommend you explain your opinion and point of view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films for wider discussion and eventual evaluation by an independent admin rather than just on my personal talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I wonder if you have considered taking your articles to peer review before nominating for GA/FA? I find peer review invaluable, as one gets helpful comment from (typically) three or four fellow Wikipedians, each with something different to bring to one's attention. I hope my comments at the BL GA were useful, but peer review gives you the same plus two or three other inputs. Just a thought. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have used Peer review in the past and it may a useful option for some of the shorter GLAM-related articles that are a bit stuck or flagging. Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, don't hesitate to recruit me if and when required. I shall brazenly seek to recruit you when I want reviewing. Tim riley (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Menggu Ziyun

I'd rather keep this off the article's talk page, so continuing the conversation here. I have emailed Frances Wood (Curator of Chinese collections) who I know, asking for help with a good quality image of a page from the manuscript, but to be honest I think it very unlikely that we will be able to get an image released on a non-restrictive license, and I don't feel it would be appropriate to plonk a PD-old tag on an image that was provided to me with, for example, a no-commercial use clause. BTW, thanks for the extra citations for the IDP article. BabelStone (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue that BL will continue to talk about, however there is a lot of goodwill to help and if a curator makes their own copy/photograph of an artefact which is not in copyright then there is no legal issue about being able to make it public. Our example might be the behind-the-scenes photographs we took of the Hoxne Hoard, at the end of the day the administration of the institutions must fall in line with the wider mission of the trustees and curators to make the "World's Knowledge" as open and available as possible.
At the same time, on the WikiMedia side we want to stay in everyone's good books and ensure continued positive collaboration. Personally, I would much rather see an article persist without an image but continue to politely highlight the problem to the institution rather than by-pass the courtesy of asking for permission to use an image for which the institution under cold, hard, copyright law has no meaningful claim of copyright. Fæ (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've heard back, and the BL do not have any existing digital images of the manuscript; and so if I want a copy I need to request a "low resolution scan" through the normal channels. Given that the agreement I would have to sign up to is incompatible with Wikimedia use, I do not think that there is any point in doing this. The current image is not great, but I guess we can live with it. BabelStone 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's all to the long term good on this issue as it is an example we can point to of having to represent the collections with poorer quality images. --Fæ 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ashley Library

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas James Wise

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination)

Could you please address the comment by Milowent? It sounds like a valid argument to me. Just because data is not as good as it could be, does not mean it is useless. Also, my comment about using sales figures to establish notability has not been answered. I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you have already decided that you are going to do this, and are just going through the motions to make it legal. I am always disappointed when I see WP being diminished of information rather than being made better. BollyJeff || talk 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

AfDs do not work in quite the same way as proposals on talk pages. It is quite normal for a nominator to put forward a nomination rationale and leave everyone to express their opinion without comment. Having addressed a couple of the issues I don't want to be seen as haranguing anyone who expresses a keep opinion. I'll hang back for a day or so before adding any more comments. BTW I am not arguing a case for excluding BOI as a source of estimates, only the encyclopaedic nature of a detailed stand-alone comparative list with precise looking figures that are unverifiable estimates. Thanks Fæ (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I saw the "this is not a ballot" banner that you added, and I am curious to know how a final decision is made. BollyJeff || talk 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It may be worth checking through WP:AFD, the discussion will be closed based on the nature and balance arguments raised in the opinion of an independent closing admin (in the case of a controversial discussion). Fæ (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward Sexton

Hello,

I was wondering why you have marked Edward sexton to be considered for deletion. He is a very well reputed tailor who with in the industry is considered to be a very important part of fashion history. I have added some good references. Please can you let me know what more I can do to improve this entry?

Thanks,

Dominic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domsm (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the issue is slightly problematic as Sexton is not easily classified into a specific notability definition. Consequently the article has to meet the WP:BIO criteria. If you could track down sources (which may only be in print rather than online) such as interviews or news items with Sexton as the topic of articles rather than tangential mentions then the rationale of impact on the historic record would be clear. At the moment the article may well pass AfD but does seem a marginal case with the current sources. If you would like my opinion on a particular source, I would be happy to take a look. Alternatively you could raise a request for independent suggestions at WP:RFF. Thanks Fæ (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Postal Union Congress £1 stamp

Fae, I put the original PUC image back as I feel that too much information is lost by using a cropped version. I think you might have thought that the four stamps were on a card mount but actually they were imperforate on sheets of paper of roughly that size. Hope that makes sense and you don't mind. Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm no expert and I did think it was a mount rather than intrinsic. In general frames of pictures get trimmed as (sometimes oddly) a photo of the frame may be quibbled over as having potential copyright when the main picture does not. Fæ (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism award

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For finding the 1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp hoax which had survived multiple reviews on here for almost 3 months
Travelbird (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Though keep your fingers crossed as it might yet have to go to AfD if an admin thinks it is not quite obvious enough and needs some discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the nomination, and I've declined the speedy. I feel like the level of scrutiny required here is more than is generally expected for G3 deletions. I've re-added {{hoax}} to the page, and I will consider nominating it at AfD if you do not.  -- Lear's Fool 07:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll take on to AfD as there are a convincing number of informed opinions expressed on the WikiProject that should make the case clear-cut. Fæ (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I've deleted it. A little poking around on Google and an offline publication database I have access to, combined with the points made at WP:STAMPS made it clear to me that an AfD would be a waste of time. Good catch, though. You deserve that barnstar.  -- Lear's Fool 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You have my respect for changing your opinion. Fæ (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I mentioned your name (and linked to some of your comments) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was unhappy with what appeared to me to go against core policy (WP:5P and WP:V), to the extent that I took the page off my watchlist rather than worry about it further. However I would not want an old long and stale debate that, when scrutinized in detail would probably embarrass all the participants, to overly negatively weight someone's RFA when the core issue may still be arguable rather than a definitive failure. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I myself am still making my mind up. But of course I wasn't soliciting a view, but simply providing a courtesy note. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries, glad you are keeping a hands-off perspective, ignore my grumpy groaning. Cheers Fæ (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The more I re-read it, the more I'm concerned (coupled with the other point I raise). I am happy when editors are BOLD in addressing non-constructive editors. But when they have a different view and un-do the edits of constructive editors, it can have a deleterious effect on the enthusiasm of our core of helpful volunteers. If it led to you being so unhappy that you took the article off your watchlist -- I'm concerned as to the effect that approach might have on a newer editor. We could lose him altogether. But I'm also concerned that I didn't weigh in, as I was heavily involved in discussions elsewhere on the page, and should have focused on those ones and piped up myself. Anyway ... am still mulling it all. As to it being old and stale, the candidate brought focus to it at the RfA, leading me to take a look at the tp discussion. Anyway ... just sharing my still evolving thoughts ... I am still a neutral, but that's what has kept me from support at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'll not be adding an opinion in RfA is that I feel they tend be be a pretty negative experience (as someone considering going through the process and finding the prospect daunting) and I feel bad for someone in good faith putting their name up getting pelted with sponges for a week. I respect the time and consideration you are putting into the process and hope that critical points in the discussion can be accepted in a positive light for improvement. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, they can be. Happily, that was not the case in the instant RfA. I struggled mightily, and was really hoping to move to support, but the candidate's most recent comments heightened my concern (you may find especially interesting those that relate to you). So, regrettably, and with no effect on the ultimate outcome I'm certain, I moved my !vote in the more negative direction instead. Best, and I expect we'll see each other around at some point.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry I was totally unaware of this extended discussion. That would definitely have changed my response and perception of the conversation. Fæ, I still think of our opinions mine has more solid reasoning. And I probably did not express my thinking on that well. But I wasn't aware that it had put you off the talk page, :S I will reflect on this further, and belated apologies for that. --Errant (chat!) 10:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Errant -- thanks for leaving your note here. As you have I expect considered, I didn't at your RfA leave word saying "your guess is wrong as to your impact on other editors, at least in the instance we are discussing, see ...". That's because I was being respectful and didn't want to be POINTy. But, as you might imagine, knowing the impact that you had on Fae was the same as I anticipated you might have, I was thinking about it. I just didn't want to beat a dead horse. Best, and tx again for your note here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowpack Park

Hi! I've seen that you have made some edits on Snowpack Park. I have some questions about the edits you've made. It seems like you have removed the image I've used, due to it being taken from the first party's official website. Does it really matter where I've taken it from? I can see why you've questioned some of the first party sources, so thank you for pointing that out.

You've also said that it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability. I think it does, since it is a first party release, that is not shovelware and is created by a well established studio. The same developers made Art Style: CUBELLO and Art Style: ORBIENT, both of which have their own Wiki-page. I hope for some feedbak. Thank you in advance! (HDingen (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for leaving a note - firstly there seems to have been a problem with the standard refchecker tool, possibly creating an edit conflict and losing your changes from seconds earlier. It ought to give me a big warning, it's possible this was an error on my part but it is surprising and I apologize if this was my mistake. I have re-added the image and the portal link that were lost.
As for the notability tag, this is really about a lack of suitable independent quality sources to demonstrate notability. Obviously game ranking and review sites are in the business of rating everything that gets released, what is needed is a slightly deeper article that demonstrates impact of the game or a significant fan-base. I doubt the tag will lead to deletion, but it should attract editors interested in finding better sources. Cheers Fæ (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. You're reasoning is valid. I now see that it lacks reviews and media coverage. I appreciate your feedback and helping out to make the article better! (HDingen (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

Sorry

Hi, Sorry I clicked a little "e" button at the bottom to wonder what it did and found it was an edit page - then I hit back and I think I may have hit some kind of shortcut that submitted changes but I wasn't sure how to check or how to get back to that area! Sorry that I did some damage, 86.26.160.235 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Franz Anatol Wyss

You nominated Franz Anatol Wyss for deletion. I don't know about the person, but saw two problems: you informed a contributor who is retired, and the link to the deletion discussion didn't work. I fixed the latter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking at it. Checking the original version, the link appears to be working as it was, it might be that you were seeing a red-link due to time lag in the server supplying the link correctly. As for the retired contributor issue, I do not know of a policy relating to what one is supposed to do in such a situation. My understanding is that there is no expectation for a nominator to trawl the page history to find possible alternative editors to notify on the basis that this would be purely a judgement call and might be even be interpreted negatively as canvassing. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It didn't work because of a "new line" within the name, caused by the template without spaces. The same thing happened (not by you) for Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik. More similarities: I didn't know the person, the contributor didn't react. We "saved" him after all. But this one-liner isn't even an article. I don't think there is a history, it looks like a mass production. I will try to resist the temptation to look who Wyss is ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to have a crack at meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria. For these old imports/translations I do check the other language articles for possible reliable sources but in this case the German version appeared to have nothing significant to add. Fæ (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are tempting me, smile. I don't want to look - I have more than enough music to deal with and don't consider that one line an article, agreeing with what you said, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

look at the mathieu Flamini page theres so much vandalism on there its untrue

Murder 2

Hello. Your PROD on Murder 2 was contested by the article's author, so I set up a deletion discussion instead. Come voice your views on the subject! Zakhalesh (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

speedy vs too speedy

You nom'd Black Caviar (Horse) for speedy one minute after it was created. This is a little too quick. A1 should not be used under people have a chance to write the article, so it's a good idea to check the article history before placing such a tag.Fortunately, the editor persisted, but many people would have never come back again & we would have lost a perfectly good editor. Since most people remain here for only a finite time, survival of the encyclopedia depends on recruiting new editors, and we must be sure not to alienate them, and do everything possible to encourage them. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with being welcoming and in most cases would apply the minimum 10-minute guideline. In this case the article was flagged in IGLOO and appeared to be nonsense with no meaningful context whatsoever (this version). If there had been any reasonable context (say, one sentence saying something about the horse) I would have just tagged as needing citations and notability addressed. The notice explains that the user can remove the template if they intend to fix the problem and I would have removed the speedy myself if I had been about and noticed the continued improvement. Reviewing this case history, I must disagree with your opinion as my action comfortably falls within the CSD-A1 guidelines though I appreciate they give significant latitude.
However, thank you for pointing out how this might be interpreted by a new contributor and I shall think twice for similar cases that are not simple abuse, personal attacks or clearly self-evident nonsense. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine that the extra eight minutes (at the barest minimum) would cause a nom any hardship whatsoever, especially when weighed against the impact of an ultra speedy nom. Fae -- did you do a wp:before check first?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case the article consisted of the six words "New article name is Black Caviar". If using IGLOO to deal with content-free or nonsense articles is considered unhelpful, then I am happy to walk away and ignore them in the future, but if there is a consensus that this is best practice for such empty articles then I suggest that IGLOO is also adapted to ignore new articles without, say, blatant swearing or key attack phrases rather than highlighting them as vandalism candidates. As you probably know I am fully conversant with BEFORE but one is not required to walk through the 13 points therein for articles which give insufficient context. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If one AGFs, and even if one doesn't assume good faith--if one simply looks at the six words, one quickly should come to the conclusion that this is an effort by a well-intentioned editor to start an article. It is simply not at all consistent with an editor seeking to leave utter nonsense.
If one checks the editor's edit history, one sees that the history supports that conclusion.
And if one uses the extra eight minutes to do a wp:before search on Black Caviar, the fact that there is a horse by that name that is very much in the news just these past 30 days pops right out of one's screen and plops upon one's forehead, confirming even more the likelihood that this is a well-intentioned effort by a new editor.
Under such circumstances I would expect any editor not to request deletion of the article. If we just wanted to delete all six-sentence articles within the first two minutes without further inquiry and without application of AGF, we could certainly have bots do that for us. That's not the case. I just !voted at an RfA against a candidate I would otherwise have wholeheartedly supported, because of my concern about his sensitivity to how his acts impacted well-intentioned constructive editors. It is an issue I think all of us, and especially those of us who are seasoned editors, should be very sensitive to.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This was a two word article, not a six sentence article. I agree with your concern for welcoming newcomers, hence my involvement at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides and my long track record of welcoming new accounts after their first meaningful contribution. As two experienced contributors have commented here, I shall lay-off using A1 for the time being to give time for proper reconsideration. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry -- I had understood that it was a six-word article. Had the circumstances been the same, however, and (at the advent of Wikileaks) the new editor simply left one word -- Wikileaks -- that would be enough (if sufficient RS coverage were available on a quick wp:before search) to suggest that what we were facing was a new editor who needed mentoring, not the hammer. IMHO, of course. Thanks for being able to listen to my thoughts without ego getting in the way, and seeing how it might inadvertently impact a well-intentioned new user. BTW, the user has left a note on the articles page; I responded, but if the spirit moves you of course you should feel free to address him as well. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, there were literally six words but "New article name is" hardly count as content or context. Comment left as suggested. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In an article that had been there for a while containing only the name of the subject & not indicating what sort of entity the name referred to, I might also have not checked. I do not consider it our responsibility to complete all the articles people start but do not work on. I merely consider it our responsibility to give them a chance to work on them after they have started. I'll expand to a valid stub anything I have some reason to think might be important, but I might not check a bare name like this. (And FWIW, in my experience, most fanciful names tend to be garage bands.) My only problem is the timing.
Fae, it would have been my guess that you accidentally omitted to check the edit history and thus noted the time, & when I realized that last night I was planning to come back here and add that comment. I must admit that when the situation seems totally clear I have not always checked myself, though I know I should--I'm not perfect and I know I'm not perfect, & because I know that I have always been reluctant to do as some admins do, and delete single-handed when they see a speediable article not yet nominated for speedy, without anyone else checking. (Incidentally, that is unfortunately the default in the current version of twinkle, & when I first started using twinkle, I had not noticed that & did a few dozen before I realized.)
What we need is some sort of automatic mechanism to prevent such deletion, or at least to alert the deletors. In the past, such proposals have been rejected because one can think of peculiar cases the might not cover, but we should try again. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Vindolanda Tablets

I borrowed the reference for Claudia Severa's letter to use on the article about her. I noticed that the date the British Museum source was accessed doesn't appear to display correctly, but I don't know how to fix the reference. Alan (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you fix it? The date appears in a standard ISO format to me. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I got confused about this BM reference. BTW, I have amended the citation for the Harry Mount piece on Vindolanda Tablets. You may wish to check it. Alan (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have a script that sniffs out the article date from the Telegraph, it must be using faulty meta-data. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources of Gogyhka?

Fae, I have two questions.

1. If the Gogyohka work is carried in a magazine or a blog on line, does it have a source? For example, if an English gogyohka is carried in Japanese magazine, does it have source?

2. If the writer of the Gogyohka has the publishing company, does it have a source? Or is it a self publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodaka-X (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. Blogs would only be a suitable source if either as evidence of a person's opinions or if considered an editorial from a notable expert (such as a journalist's blog for a national newspaper). Rarely are blogs given much credence for notability of an article. A magazine in any language would normally be considered a reliable source, so long as there was an editorial policy (i.e. not just publishing anything anyone sends in) and it appeared to be more than a club newsletter.
  2. In this case, someone publishing their own work and opinions through their own publishing house is weak evidence. Even where the publishing house were publishing works by others, the issue would still be that there is one guiding mind selecting the material and would always raise concerns about possible COI or natural bias. The sources can be quoted but they could be discounted as evidence for notability of the topic. However, this is a marginal case (in my opinion) and if one were to compare (say) to religious topics on Wikipedia, one can frequently see that the majority of sources are published by organizations set up to promote the religion and these sources are rarely removed (though their encyclopaedic usefulness and appropriate weight can be called into question). So long as some independent sources cover the topic, there should a fair rationale for the article to continue to avoid deletion and in particular an argument that the article is continuing to improve is often considered quite convincing. Fæ (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer in detail ,fae I 'd like to make sure of what you wrote because I'm a foreigner.

1.I can quote my blog online as sources of others' works because I'm a person and I don't belong to any groups of Gogyohka. It's OK? Does a magazine without ISBN,or without selling it in a bookstore mean "a club newsletter" ?

Mostly no - as for blogs the answer is not clear-cut. In my opinion I would advise against quoting your own blog as it is likely to be challenged as failing WP:SELFPUB.
Mostly yes - a magazine with no ISSN/ISBN/OCLC and not for sale in shops also appears doubtful, however there are specialist journals and magazines which have been accepted in the past (such as student magazines or scientific journals which are privately published and with a circulation of less than 100).

2.If the writer is an editor and the president of the publishing house, can he cite his magazine or his book as sources of gogyohka in Wikipedia?

Yes, but if an article is entirely reliant on non-independent sources then the article may fail the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:COI resulting in later challenges to contents. Again, it is essential for a stand-alone article to have independent sources to support the content. It may be worth confirming general opinions about your publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum collaboration

Hi Fae! Not sure if you have seen this on the WMUK mailing list but do have a look at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM when you have a chance. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did, congratulations on this being a go-er. I'm hesitant to put my name down as I'm rather committed to the BL and BM collaborations at the moment (if I'm stretched to thin I would be in danger of forgetting what I promised to do or not making much of an impact in any task force). Would you like me to format the NMM page in the same tab style as GLAM/BL or is it more useful staying as is? Fæ (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Once it's up and running, that would be very helpful - I looked at the format briefly and couldn't get it to work with the time/effort I had remaining. But once we're going we should probably move the current content to a sub-page and make the GLAM/NMM page a bit more like the BM The Land (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I suggest you leave a note for either me or Rock Drum to set it up when you are ready as we've done a few now, so it's more like 10 minutes of cut, paste and tweak rather than 50 minutes of suck it and see for us. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lithuanian painters

Instead of embarrasing me with repeated seperate nominations I suggest that you go through Category:Lithuanian painters and make a list of articles which you think are not notable because of no hits in google books and if you are correct I will speedy author them once we've both looked through them all. They were all started under the preconception that all articles in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia were notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that you are feeling pressured. I'm not targeting Lithuanian painters or your creations, rather I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Unreferenced BLPs in alphabetical order as part of my unsourced BLP backlog drive contributions (which is much wider than artists). That a handful of these similar articles have been nominated for deletion at the same time is a coincidence of their alphabetical listing rather than anything else about their nature. As these don't represent any immediate issue, I'm quite happy to skip all Lithuanian painters if you would prefer to review these in your own time. Obviously if the only unsourced BLPs left in the Visual arts uBLP queue were these articles then we probably ought to pay them particular attention. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not pressured but embarrassing to see deletion warnings of such rubbish stubs that I'm responsible for.. I thought as much that you were doing the BLPs. The problem was I started both Lithuanian and Swiss painters in sub stub batches ages ago before I even knew what a BLP was. The intention was to transfer material from other wikipedias and get these articles put into ENglish. The mistake though was that a] the articles should have contained some info which asserts notability. b] the articles should have been referenced with at least one reliable source and c]Each article requires individual attention and research which is why biographies are not really compatible for mass stubbing unless they share a common theme (e.g president of somewhere or actors in the same film) and have a solid source. d]The stubs are flooded into the same categories with the half decent articles and don't seem to be expanded by anybody. Maybe the best thing would be to nuke them all and wait until somebody actually wants to spend the time to write articles about them. Swiss painters for instance, a few have been expanded but the vast majority are untouched sadly. We have a serious lack of German contributors on here which is why most of our German/Swiss/Austria municpalities are still sub stubs and have decent articles in German wikipedia. and Lithuanian editors, as one can see the numbers interested in Lithuanian art is practically zero. Its a shame I think as wikipedia should have detailed articles on topics such as these... But the mass stubs and lack of people expanding them shows up the systematic bias on wikipedia and doesn't really do anything to eliminate it unless the articles themseleves are resourceful.

I've got to say though that you are one of the rare editors who actually know how to research articles. The vast majority who nominate my articles for AFD do not and they are nearly always kept. This is why I haven't protested or fussed about your AFDs as I can see you are right and that aside from the encyclopedia entry there is relatively nothing to indicate they are that notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've db authored the two you sent to AFD as its obvious the outcome. If you come across any more of mine which fails notability I'll db author them once you inform me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, if I notice any more I'll put a note on your talk page rather than taking any direct action. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

drop me a line (Vindolanda tablets)

Thanks for RPPing my user page!

Thank you: A few hours of Huggling and it needs semi-protection? Sigh. Thanks for keeping an eye out and RPPing. See you at the London meetup next weekend. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being abused by vandals seems to be a badge of honour. :) Fæ (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


International Dunhuang Project

Just to let you know, the article was GA reviewed and quick failed this morning, which was a little disappointing. The reviewer was concerned about undue bias and reliance on the IDP site, but given that there are no reliable 3rd party sources to use for information about the IDP, I see no way of correcting this issue. Thanks anyway for your help with the article. BabelStone (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this has not got through yet, particularly as apart from the sources problem, the article seems to tick the rest of the GA criteria. This would be an good issue to discuss with the researchers in the IDP whenever they have their wiki-week or related editathon. In my discussion with the BL English Lit. department, one key suggestion was to provide recommended bibliographies for key articles rather than going to the effort of a detailed review by a curator; this seems to be an article where a good bibliography would make a big difference. Fæ (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've added my responses to the GA review at Talk:International_Dunhuang_Project/GA1. I could (and should) use non-IDP sources for referencing the collecting activities of Stein, Pelliot, Kozlov, etc., but I don't see any possibility of finding any reliable and useful 3rd party sources about the history and activities of the IDP itself, so I'm afraid that it may never reach GA status, never mind FA. After two successive GAN failures of what I consider to be well-referenced, well-written and comprehensive articles I'm beginning to wonder whether it is worth trying to jump through hoops in order to get wiki-accolades when I all I really want to do is write good articles about topics that interest me. BabelStone (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the GA/FA process is useful and in talking to both the BM and BL these are easy to understand quality targets to set (and easy to see when they are achieved). The IDP problem of sources is unusual for such a notable project and considering that so many highly notable institutions are part of the project, I would personally consider any peer reviewed publication a suitable source even if from the IDP and it is not a hard requirement in WP:GACR for there to be multiple independent sources for the text of the article. I do however agree that if the article is overly single-sourced to the website (as opposed to printed publications) I would struggle with agreeing this as best practice. Saying all that, you have done sterling work on this article and I fully support your viewpoint that the important thing is to write what interests you most. The British Library are planning other editathon events later in the year and I suggest that it might be a better use of time to move on to other articles and leave the GA debate to another time rather than letting it bog you down. Fæ (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For the purposes of GLAM/BL, it might be better to say that GA/FA isn't the target: the ultimate target is having as good an article as possible on the subject, and that getting GA or FA is a nice bonus. If the article is as good as it can possibly be and it remains a stub, that's fine. (Eventualism? I dunno. More like just another challenge in helping target-driven public institutions navigate the rough and tumble of Wikipedia.) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you both. Creating and improving articles is the real goal, and once you start explicitly aiming for GA or FA status you are in danger of losing sight of that goal, and it all becomes a box-ticking exercise which does not necessarily make the article any better -- and in some cases it can make the article worse (which I thought was the case with Hoxne Hoard, which in my opinion was not improved by the FA review exercise). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Thanks for suggesting to site References correctly. Since I am kinda new, I don't know how to cite them properly. But still thanks for telling. Gleb (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For you!

 The British Library barnstar
For getting those two articles to GA, I present to you, the British Library barnstar. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks RD! Fæ (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy vs too speedy 2

I must agree with the editor above. I created an article for Paul Drury with one line after having had an hours work lost due to a tech blip. Within one minute of me saving the initial text you had it tagged for notability and references. If you had waited only a few minutes you would have seen the detail and the references coming. This behaviour is very off putting for people trying to create articles. We may not be following guidelines exactly, but please give other contributors, who are giving up time to Wikipedia a bit of breathing speace before you tag them. You say above that oyu will think twice before doing this so quickly.Please wait at least ten minutes before applying these tabs. Kunchan (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive the page stalking but I noticed this comment and wanted to chime in. While I can understand that it can be frustrating to have something quickly tagged for deletion, you've got to put yourself in Fæ's shoes as well. How was Fæ to know that you intended to add more to the article? How is he/she to differentiate this article from the hundreds of junk articles that get created each week with little more than a single line. Some editors like to save frequently and that's fine. If this is how you like to work, consider adding {{underconstruction}} to the top. That lets everyone know whats going on and will give you some time to bring the article up the point where new page patrollers wont have a problem with it. --RadioFan (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Kunchan - Please add comments at the bottom of talk pages, otherwise they are likely to be missed. In this case your point is misplaced as the above comment refers to speedy deletion notices rather than improvement templates for which there is no consensus or recommendation to ignore poor articles in case someone might come along "in the next few minutes". In addition to RadioFan's suggestion, please refer to WP:DRAFT for an explanation of how to create draft articles if you would prefer not to receive improvement notices.
Though you have since added a lot of footnotes to this article, most appear to be fairly meaningless and unverifiable, for example you have referred to "Paul Drury: Artist and Printmaker, University of London, 1984" five times and it could be a book, a general note or something else as without an ISBN, OCLC or some other kind of reference there is no way of telling. You should also note that general searches such as http://www.mfa.org/search/collections?keyword=paul+drury are not considered reliable sources as they are subject to change as the underpinning data changes, please refer to the specific article or collection. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the critiques of the article - the reference you mention is a book (University of London are the publishers). The general searches come from links to art galleries collections - I refer to the actual colleciton in the article - so I'll add more details in the ref. The references are not 'mostly meaningless and unverifiable' - I find that insulting, as the article is a well-referenced and much better than most on Wikipedia. All the references have publisher details and dates. I have spent considerable time writing, researching and verifying this article - and feel we should be more supportive of each other. We are all equal members of Wikipedia. You haven't actually refered to my main request - to allow 10 mins before you tag an article? Thanks 86.176.39.149 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "meaningless" is based on not being able to identify what the footnotes relate to. The term "unverifiable" is in the sense of the policy expressed by WP:V. The sources such as database searches explicitly fail WP:RS and WP:ELNO. The newspaper article referred to is presumably an obituary (which it does not make clear) but I have not been able to verify it so far. The website http://www.makers.org.uk appears rather compromised as a source as it is a promotional website with no clear editorial policy which means that single sourcing statements against it would not be recommended. The books you have referenced have no page numbers, which weakens their veracity as sources as one cannot expect other editors to read the entirety of every book referenced before judging if the citations are being correctly applied to the text of the article. I have, however, taken the page off my watch-list as if I started tagging all the outstanding problems you would probably find it less than helpful. Fæ (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, as for your 10 minutes suggestion, no, I'll not be adopting it as it is not considered best practice for improvement tags. Fæ (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the database sources - they were only showing works in the collections and I wasn't sure how to 'evidence' them - and from your previous posts I gather this doesn't need referencing. I've aded the ISBN numbers (the books are, of course) verifiable - as for adding the paged numbers - I've checked your articles and it is not something you do yourself consistently - other editors are not meant to be reading books to verify sources (or even verifying sources quoted) - usually we think that if someone has taken the trouble to write a referenced article (one that had, in this case, been outstanding for several years), we give them the benefit of the doubt. As fot not metioning in the Daily Telegraph reference that the article is an obituary - the referenced text does that. We can all take an overzealous stance towards editing - I'm glad we don't as we soon run out of members.

You have every right not to adopt the 10 minutes - but I'm not sure where it dsays that adding tags 1 minute after an article has been created is best practice either. Let's agree to disagree on what is 'nice' practice on thisKunchan (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no paragon of virtue and doubtless in my 47,500 contributions over the last year you will be able to find many sloppy edits. However you will note that good articles (or better) invariably use page numbers for cited books and it is common sense best practice. Happy to agree to disagree, that's really how Wikipedia works best. Fæ (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Camberwell Public Baths

The article Camberwell Public Baths you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Camberwell Public Baths for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the review discouraging, so will not be returning to the article within the time limit suggested. Fæ (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Black Stone Violin

Dear Fæ.. This is Lars Widenfalk, Poderedellaluna, who's writing. I'v tryed to make my text(Blackbird. The Black stone violin) a little more encyclopedic and placed it in Village pump, proposals.. and requests for feedback.. Silence! Can U please give me a hint how to proceed?What about photos? where to place them? Regards Lars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poderedellaluna (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken another quick look and tweaked the format a little. My opinion is that this would fail the criteria of WP:GNG for notability and still reads as highly promotional rather than encyclopaedic. For notability of an artistic creation to be notable enough for an article, there would need to be significant impact demonstrated in independently published sources and I do not believe that everything mentioned in Ripley's Believe It or Not is notable in the sense intended on Wikipedia. It may be easier to justify an article for yourself as an artist rather than one creation if there were sufficient independent sources. I am sorry that your request on RFF had no replies, it may be worth posting a note there for a second time. Fæ (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Camberwell Public Baths

There is a thread involving a matter with which you may be involved at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Camberwell Public Baths. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Intercontinental Church of God

The Intercontinental Church of God article under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article entitled: 'Church of God International (USA)' JoVaM. 10.03.2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


The article: The Intercontinental Church of God is currently under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article Church of God International (USA). JoVaM, 10.03.2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the article becoming a redirect, at the moment it seems to fail WP:CFORK. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 16, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalk C. 06:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne Tigress

The Hoxne Hoard is the largest hoard of late Roman silver and gold discovered in Britain. Found by a metal detectorist in the village of Hoxne in Suffolk, England on 16 November 1992, the hoard consists of 14,865 Roman gold, silver and bronze coins from the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and approximately 200 silver tableware and gold jewellery items. The hoard is now on permanent display in the British Museum and is valued at £4.5 million. The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, which coincides with the end of Britain as a Roman province. The Hoxne Hoard contains several rare and important objects, including a gold body-chain and silver-gilt pepper-pots. The Hoxne Hoard is also of particular archaeological significance because it was excavated by professional archaeologists with the items largely undisturbed and intact. The find has helped to improve the relationship between metal detectorists and archaeologists, and influenced a change in English law regarding finds of treasure. (more...)

Parenting websites

That article on a parenting website which you tagged for speedy deletion a few minutes ago - it was much too spammish in tone, yes, but it did assert notability. I've cleaned it up.

Thanks just the same. DS (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did take a browse through but nothing jumped out at me that it seemed notable, a G11 would have been a better choice though. Looking again, I can see "Supersavvyme also has frequent celebrity contributors including journalist and TV presenter Lowri Turner[7], financial journalist and founder of SavvyWoman.co.uk, Sarah Pennells and style writer and author Mimi Spencer." which I admit to overlooking the first time and I agree is sufficient to make A7 not fly. Thanks for picking me up on that one. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Plus they're owned by megacorp Proctor and Gamble. DS (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
True, however at the time I flagged it, the wording was "P&G’s supersavvyme" so it didn't make an impression on me and I'm not sure I would agree that everything a large notable corporation owns is itself automatically notable though it may give you pause. However I put my hands up to this one, and confess I could have picked a better tag and taken a second look at the links embedded in the first version, I'll try harder to get them spot on all the time. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Note, I've taken the article off my watchlist but it seems evident that the creator has chosen a name that indicates a conflict of interest with the website. I don't want them to feel pursued by raising another user-warning but you may want to advise them of the CHU process. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle NPP - CSD patrolling

I noticed that you tagged William Urasaki for CSD using Twinkle just now, but it didn't get marked as patrolled. Did you get any errors from Twinkle telling you about this? (I am currently trying to repair Twinkle CSD, particularly patrolling, so any feedback would be welcomed.) Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this was noted for at least one other article yesterday (can't recall what it was) but there was no error flagged in Twinkle. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
So it just said "Marking as patrolled: Done", and yet it didn't actually work? That's no good... I don't know what I can do about that sort of thing. What browser do you use? (Sorry if I'm bothering you, by the way - I don't want to take too much of your time away from the worthy area of NPP...) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it said anything about doing the patrol marking, perhaps it's not detecting it in the first place? I'm using Firefox 3.6.8 within OS X 10.5.8. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Black violin

Hello Fæ.. So I'v just tryed to put a new updaded and cut down version about the Black Violin, The Blackbird.. More encyclopedic.. Its not easy to verify or identify a source, References.. It looks like a problem to verify a written text with photos and different www's thats shows the violin in photos, videos or sound.. Its like wikipedia as a written encylopedic sourse cant grasp the new technology with fxs a photo or video of the item in question.. I tryed to verify the stone violin with this different www's but I am not successful!

I do understand though that no Volunteers sits down and check my different www's- even if its all there.. as the content is verifiable by looking at and visiting the differrent sites!

Its like a moment 22.

I didn't succeed placing some photos of the violin neither.. feels like idiotfilters.. too difficult for me! Poderedellaluna Poderedellaluna (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Eudora Welty's "One Writer's Beginnings"

Fae:

You tagged my article on Eudora Welty's One Writer's Beginnings literally one minute after it was up because it did not meet "notability guidelines for books". The book actually meets several of Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. First, it was written by American author who won a major literary prize, the Pulitzer Prize, in 1973. Second, the book has been referenced in a number of articles on Eudora Welty, including articles on literary criticism. Third, the book is taught at literary programs at universities and colleges in the United States.

It would fall under the same category as Yukio Mishima's Sun and Steel (essay). Could you please remove the tag? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMUWM (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, could you please ensure that the information about the Pulitzer Prize winner and at least some of the listing of it as a college source book is added to the article? The notability tag is intended to encourage other editors to add this sort of information, but as you are already on the case I have already removed it on the assumption that you intend to make notability clear anyway. Cheers Fæ (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the head up and the welcome! :) Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMUWM (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent anti-vandal efforts! Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for support Fæ. Getting some advice from someone is always helpful :). Gleb (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks from me too for sorting out the Nancy Grace thing. Yes, I was trying to revert vandalism, but perhaps not that successfully! Heywoodg (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A little help

I wanted to add this picture to this article. Picture seems to be copyright-free. I just wanted a little help uploading it properly, so it doesn't get removed. Thanks for your help so far. Gleb (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this photo is 'all rights reserved' so would not be suitable. I'll add some standard help about photo uploading to your talk page for you to browse through though. Cheers Fæ (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of kwik questions ...

  • Was this ever published? (I don't read as much as I should)
    No, I thought that Charles would pick it up but now I think he might have expected me to paste it into his newsletter - we probably should use it somewhere else, such as Rock Drum's GLAM newsletter.
  • I have also written a think piece .... any comments on this?
    I like it, perhaps you might consider focusing it into an Wikipedia essay though it could easily be bundled in with the Outreach case study or project briefing note. The technical side could do with some thought from someone like Tom Morris, not sure if he has spent any more time on the QR code solution yet. I am still considering our lack of published papers from these events, and maybe our curator and academic collaborators would like to add their name to a short briefing paper for the Journal of the Society of Archivists or similar?
  • Do you know how we can get a list of Derby articles and how many we have that are starts, stubs, Cs etc. This is the classic Quality v. Size table for a Wikiproject.... I can't spot how to do it.
    This is tricky and means ensuring that the associated WikiProject categories are sorted out. I fluffed this up previously and we could do with a projects wizard to sort it out. Perhaps Rock Drum might know more, if not we could got somewhere like the History project team to fish for an expert? I know that the tool to set it up automatically takes sysop privilege to use and that's why I was not able to sort it out myself before (presumably as you can cause a giant mess very quickly).
  • I would like to ask you whether you would be prepared to give a talk on April 9th targetted at the non wikipedians. Title may be How is Wikipedia different from a museum". (I am trying to get wikipedians, curators AND local historian types.) Is that OK? Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, when I said I was flattered, that meant that I was not coming along - it's a bit tight with other activities and the 6 hour round trip from the wrong side of London is a bit of a hike; sorry about that as it would have been a fun day. Fæ (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your mentions of me: I'd be happy for that article on the WMUK wiki to appear in the newsletter, although you may want to update it a bit to be more relevant (eg. there are now two Wikipedians-in-residence active: Indianapolis and France). About the assesment table, I can't help you there. Mike sorted that out for the BL project (I just did the pages - all the complicated stuff with the assessment makes my brain hurt fO_O). Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to set aside 3 days and a box of painkillers to understand how Mike does this stuff. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I know it's a while still, until publication, but can one of you guys (or both of you, if you want) go through the article and update/copyedit it, please? Thanks in advance, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm

My apologies to you and Paduch. Don't think that was the best bit of wording on my part. What I think I was trying to imply was that if an article had a list (of commercial links) in it, there couldn't be much harm in adding one. I don't like these lists, and wouldn't want to support or suggest creating one. I certainly wasn't expecting him to add others. It looks from his contribs that he's very interested in one subject only. It may not be spam, as they appear to be different companies - but none of the links look worth having in terms of 'further reading'. They would be useful for buying whatever it is they are selling - but that's not what we are here for, as you say. I did say others might disagree, so feel free to remove the lot per the policies. I think these sections may be being phased out - I hope so in general terms. (There was one article that cleverly linked to three companies that on research turned out to be the same outfit...) If there's a howl of anguish, say I was having an off moment. (True...) Incidentally, with regard to commercial links, I removed a commercial site selling Flatbed trolleys, and have now gone through 30 pages of ghits and cannot find an RS for the dear little things. I've used them, more people seem to be selling them than are selling Viagra online, but no-one talks ABOUT them. If you get a dull moment, you could start at Google Page 30. It would at least prove that there was something duller than the moment you were having... Peridon (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As it says on a friend of mine's tee shirt: "pobody's nerfect". Peridon (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. Perhaps you could follow-up on your advice to Paduch about their list, it might seem less confrontational from yourself rather than from the person s/he has just reverted? Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Looks like your nomination is going well so far, good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BCD, and thanks for the interest for those that watch my userpage. Apologies if I have surprised anyone but I have not put a notice in my userspace or discussed my RFA apart from with a minimum handful of people during necessary preparation in order to avoid making anyone feel under pressure to comment and to ensure I avoid any possibility of infringing the guidelines for canvassing. I have no particular expectations and will not tally up who did or did not !vote (so I'll be avoiding thankspam too). If someone does have a question, then please do feel free to drop me a confidential email if you are not comfortable discussing it on-wiki. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

How would an editor become a OTRS volunteer. Please respond on my talk page, Thanks. Gabriele449 03:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fæ (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

nice to meet you Fæ thank you so much please help me. because I don't understand wikipedia style...Minho Kim
I have left some handy help on your talk page, please take a little time to read through the guidelines. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • To Fae,

How are you? I am sending you this message because I believe you are the only user who could understand this situation, and provide assistance. First of all, I had no purpose of ADVERTISEMENT nor PROMOTE for Lim Hyung-Joo's article. Second, Apart from posting Lim Hyung Joo's article, I just added the name 'Lim Hyung-Joo' in "a tenor" and "people born in 1986" categories. (I would undone the work if it's needed) I don't understand why JzG DELETED Lim Hyung Joo. JzG(Guy) blocked my IP address, so I am using different IP address to contact you. It's okay for him to block my IP address, but I wish Lim Hyung-Joo's article undeleted. I am still a novice in Wikipedia, so please give me a way to fix this problem. Thank you for reading my message, and hope to hear from you soon...Minho Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.47.68.17 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am aware of the issue and made a comment on Guy's talk page. I am committed this week but will follow up again next week so that the discussion can be properly resolved. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have passed on this case to an admin to have a look at and leave it to their discretion. Fæ (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Commitment on speedy A1/A3

As I fully agree with the 10 minute consensus for A1/A3 speedy deletion tags and interpreting exceptions is going to remain problematic and debatable, I would like to make a firm commitment to avoid tagging any new article within the first 10 minutes of its creation with these categories. Should anyone spot that I have done so please revert my change if it has not already been done and drop me a note (or trout slap) here for not doing so, as if it happens it would be in error rather than a decision on my part. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that commitment needs putting in writing. There are still plenty of blatant exceptions to he rule. --Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but if they are solely A1/A3 rather than any other category (such as pa, hoax etc.) then I have warmed to the consensus view that there seems little likelihood of damage if it waits 10 minutes to see if the creator improves it and I can always add the article to my watchlist and tag on a friendly improvement notice on it instead. Having been responsible for one case of a new user warring with the SDPatrolBot I have no intention of doing any harm through my action which could be avoided by following best practice. There is no implication here that I expect others to make any similar commitment as they might just be an awful lot smarter than me at doing speedies. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Trolleys

There isn't a barnstar for references or one for trolleys so far as I can see, so as it's a modest little article that you have managed against the odds to provide refs for, may I award you a modest barnstar?

File:Modest Original Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
The subject is modest, but the referencing job was impressive. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes there is now:

The Trolley Dollie Barnstar
I award myself the trolley barnstar for being more abnormally interested in trolleys than seems healthy and I thank Peridon for caring. Fæ (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice one! Peridon (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting

I find it amusing that you chose to cover up both your censorship and unprovoked threats of blacklisting. However, it is good to know that you possess a modicum of shame. Perhaps that can be elaborated upon in time to develop a genuine morality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorbitol (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have no idea what you are talking about I assume your unpleasant note is intended for someone else. Fæ (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, after checking your contributions I can see you may be alluding to your blanket adding of links to http://www.truthtree.com in external links sections. You have already been advised of the policies and guidelines that apply, having a link blacklisted because it appears to be spammed across many articles it quite normal, should not be considered a "threat" and you can appeal against the blacklisting if you feel you have a case (if it has been blacklisted, I have not checked the current status). As for morality, well my moral background might be different to yours but my ethical behaviour with regard to Wikimedia projects would be considered perfectly respectable by the overwhelming majority, the key different between the two of us I suspect being that I prefer to not endlessly debate the religious context of articles, this does not make me a fanatical secularist or prove that I'm on some sort of mission. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RfD

Your adminship request is going to close in less than 24 hours and your are a sure fire admin. Jessy T/C 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I too would be surprised if it doesn't pass. That being said, I encourage you to consider your position as both an editor here and a potential admin. A year ago or so, you blew it. You created a new account and appear to have righted the ship. The community trusts who you are today and has spoken on your behalf. If you remain in the closet, you may have become an admin and shown that under the current username that you are trusted, but you will not have redeemed yourself. As long as you keep your previous identity in the closet, it may come back and bite you. There will be people who will forever doubt you and question your credentials, they will always wonder "Who was he that his secret was so great that he hid it the way he did." YOU will always have the question, "Would I have passed if my full history were known? It will forever be a secret and the longer it is kept a secret, the bigger it becomes. There is a psychological effect of keeping secrets.
Personally, I believe in second chances, and I think a lot of people who opposed would like to be able to review you for who you are vs who you were. I suspect that based upon your edit history that you would find the community more forgiving than you give it credit for. But I do think you are doing yourself and the community an injustice by not revealing your true identity. I could be wrong, but I think the peace of mind would be worth it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hold on, I thought the mop was supposed to be no big deal. Apparently, it's something one is going to be up all night worrying about and torturing oneself over–indeed, an injustice to the community! Can I have some fries with that kind of overblown rhetoric?! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The most oft quoted myth on wikipedia "the mop is no big deal." That MIGHT have been true when WP was not a big deal, but over the years that myth has been dispelled. But I'm not talking about the mop, I'm talking about Fae as a specific individual. I think Fae is doing himself (herself) and injustice by keeping her past a secret AND the community an injustice by not trusting the community enough to judge Fae fairly. At this point, Fae merely has to accept the bucket. But doing so will mean doing so under the cloud of secrecy and obfuscation. Honesty is always the best policy. Sorry, but a secret past will forever haunt Fae and this account, I think Fae should aim higher as it would be vindication for Fae and show trust in the community to assess Fae in light of the past years solid efforts.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Balloonman. Actually, the community is passing a consensual majority supporting Fae's adminship. Therefore, mentioning that Fae is doing injustice to the community, is a wrong comment. Of course, there are individuals who belong to the minority - as evidenced in the RfA - who may wish Fae to reveal his background. They could speak individually to Fae on the issue. But invoking the same as a community point of view is a misplaced proposition. My apologies in advance for opposing your point of view. And my kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Balloonman, take a break. For a touch of reality, consider the fact that as an unpaid volunteer GLAM ambassador, tomorrow I have my second meeting with the English and Drama department in the British Library to firm up details of a Wikipedia collaborative event and on Wednesday I have arranged our first contact with the Wellcome Trust to assist with their plans for a research workshop for on-line sharing. Being involved with the GLAM collaborations is my priority here and if you investigate how you can help with some of your local GLAM events, you might find that a lot more satisfying than getting yourself worked up in RFA debates.
By the way, these same organizations see a link to this talk page in my emails to them and it may be their first experience of seeing how discussion works on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind if you intend to continue posting here. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, it is not about your getting the bit or not getting it, getting it was pretty much a forgone conclusion when I first voiced my oppose. It's about trust. It's apparent that you have garnered the communities trust, it is only a shame that you don't trust the community. Personally, I think you would pass if you acknowledged your past and said, "Here is how I've grown/changed." I think it would be a lot more meaningful to you, in the long run, if you were accepted despite your past. Again, I think you are selling the community and yourself short.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making your point here and in several different ways in my RFA. Please consider the point made now; continuing to repeat the same debate on my talk page even before my RFA is completed probably will not be seen as good practice in the opinion of most people who will read this. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

GLAM portals?

Hey Fæ,

I was wandering around the BM today and had a thought about a potentially easy win for GLAM: Portals. I don't quite know what the best way to proceed with this idea is, so I hope you don't mind if I run it past you. Imagine if you went to something like Portal:British Museum or Portal:British Library and it contained links to lots and lots of articles about the things you can find in the particular institutions. You go to the BL portal and it's filled with articles, pictures, sounds and other content from across Wikimedia related to stuff that's on show in the BL. (I see there are some bits and pieces that have been put together in subpages of Portal:British Library, but there isn't yet a main page for Portal:British Library.

Basically, I'm thinking with GLAMs, the portals could go in a slightly different direction than they do already. They could show what is in the museum, and basically be a Wikipedia counterpart to the real life museum. With the BL, that means you might have a list of all the works in the permanent collection on the Portal page with links to the relevant articles (like Magna Carta, Gutenberg Bible etc.). Same with the BM: a chunk of the portal page could be organised along the same lines that the exhibitions are. You can then imagine someone getting home from poking all around the BM or another major institution like the Natural History Museum or Science Museum and be able to explore Wikipedia along the same set of conceptual threads you had while exploring the museum.

If you went to the BM one, you might find a listing of objects in the BM that have Wikipedia pages, along with topics they are related to. In the BM one, you might have a section on, say, Enlightenment topics, and another section on the African galleries.

This will probably work better for institutions like the BM or, say, the National Gallery or the Louvre.

I'm not sure whether this will be problematic with Wikipedia policies and what the best way to seek community consensus on how to build this. That might be through the Village Pump, or through RfC, or just by seeking consensus on, say, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM or Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BL and then being bold and going ahead with one. Portal policy seems deliberately vague on what could become a portal, and a GLAM institution portal would definitely "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas", but I'm not sure whether it would fall foul of either the COI/NPOV policies (re. the feeling that the portals may be promotional for the particular GLAM institutions) or WP:OR (WP:P says that all the core policies apply like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. apply to portals just as much as they do to mainspace. Then again, Portal:BBC exists, as does Portal:British Army. But imagine if Portal:BBC were a guide to Wikipedia content about BBC shows but through the lens of what is currently being broadcast. That might raise some problems in terms of neutrality and WP:OR (ignoring the fact that it would currently probably be a copyvio because of the copyright status of TV schedules).

I'm also not totally sure how it will be thought of by the GLAM institutions that WP/WMF/WMUK are reaching out to. The positive is that it's a way to explore Wikipedia content through the lens of what they can see in a particular GLAM institution. The negative is that they may see it as competition for their own web efforts. I can imagine that if such a portal existed, it might be the sort of place a GLAM institution could link to from their site. Their mainspace articles may be good, but they aren't necessarily interesting for the visitor. I mean, people go to somewhere like the BM not because the BM is interesting but to see the exhibits. And although the exhibits are often temporary, people will often want to read up on what they've already seen.

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be concerned about maintainability unless there were a keen set of maintainers (intuitively I feel the same way about newsletters, which tend to draw time away from collaboration activities and that's why I prefer to think about long term case-studies rather than "news"). I would think there could be enough interest in a Portal:Museums (which avoids the issue of it being a COI) and could hierarchically sit under Portal:History. However as a more specific interesting page for our collaborations, I wonder how funky it would be to have a BM or BL floor plan article using the {{Overlay}} or similar template? An exploded plan of rooms in the British Museum which cross-linked to articles about the room theme, collection category, photo category or particular artefact would be pretty useful as an adjunct for the main article. The BM reading room changes its special exhibition every few months and this would impose only a relatively small maintenance burden.
It would be a good topic to chat about at the next London meet-up. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind be adding by 2c, I've started work on the BL portal, Tom, but haven't finished it yet. That's why there is no main page for it. I can put it up, if you wish, but there would be some modules on the page which would be blank. However, if you are willing to help me, it could be done it a couple of days. I do like the idea, though, of having different sections for each exhibit. However, Portals are usually about exhibiting the best Wikipedia content on a particular. But rules are there to be broken. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Portals are good, but I think that the solution is a new wiki that allows for unnotable additions to an article. Probably needs some paper to discuss at length but here goes. But lets imagine I'm a zoo with a zebra called "Zed". I would like to mention that "Zed is 14 years old and was born here in this zoo and is fed at 4pm etc". If you want to know more about Zebras then there is a link here. If you want pictures then they are here. If you would like a list of other zoos nearby that have a zebra then click here. This solution I think solves the maintenance problem that Fae spoke about. The zoo writes a few sentences about "Zed"; the stuff about zebras comes from wikipedia, the pictures from common, maybe some stuff from wikispecies and the latter is just category data. Sorry Fae I couldnt resist adding to this conversation. Obviously I have shown a GLAM solution but it also works for other subjects where a user has some locally notable stuff that it wants maintained by an external database.... mostly. But nuff said Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't so much thinking about for zoos, but for institutions which in general cover things which are of high cultural significance. Take the British Museum. They have just concluded an enormous, stunning exhibition on the Book of the Dead and shown an enormous collection of items related to ancient Egyptian death rituals and beliefs. In addition, they have exhibitions on Afghanistan, Eric Gill, Asian Buddhism, and an exhibition on drawing (the Picasso and Julie Mehretu). But just stick with the Book of the Dead exhibition: on a BM portal page, imagine you've got two columns with articles about stuff of general interest about the museum on the one side and on the other, a list of current major special or temporary exhibitions. In that column, for each of the current exhibitions and, say, the last five recently finished exhibitions, you include links to a huge amount of encyclopedia content and links to the relevant categories and pages on Commons, and on Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. If it is significant, maybe even Wikinews may have covered it.
Now for the Book of the Dead exhibition at the BM, why not the Commons category, Wikisource for the Papyrus of Ani, then the following articles: Book of the Dead, Ancient Egypt, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Hieratic, Art of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Egyptian religion, Osiris Ancient Egyptian burial customs, Mummification, Canopic jar, Pyramid texts, Coffin texts, Book of Breathing, Papyrus, Senet, List of Book of the Dead spells, Duat, a few of the pharoes and others whose remains were exhibited and so on. Maybe even Death deity. And from Commons, we could use an image to illustrate. And relevant WikiProjects, categories, maybe a nice historiographical text on Wikisource. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up on this: User:Guoguo12 has started an RfC on the role of portals over on Wikipedia talk:Portal. I've posted up an idea there on the proposal giving it a GLAM spin. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi Fæ, it's my pleasure to let you know that your RFA was successful (128/23/6). You had great support from the community, but in all these cases, it's worthwhile taking some time to read and acknowledge the concerns of those who did not support your adminship. Having said that, total and utter congratulations, and welcome aboard to the good ship "blockage, protectage, deletage". I know that you know your way around, but don't hesitate to contact any of your fellow admins or those decidedly lazy 'crats (speaking only for myself) should you wish to seek further advice at any point hereafter. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, I hope you'll use the tools wisely and cautiously. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Remember - it's the fluffy end that goes in the bucket. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiThanks
WikiThanks
Thank you to all those contributing and interested in my RFA.

A number of issues were brought up, the top being early CSD tagging and how the clean start policy ought to apply to admins. The first I shall take as serious criticism and continue to work on how my habits should change to demonstrate improvement over the long term in addition to commitments on these points and others I have made in my RFA and on this page. The areas I need to improve on will not do so in a vacuum, and I shall look for advice on best practise over the coming weeks and follow-up reviews from those with better experience than I. The last point might be the stimulus for an improved understanding of consensus or change proposal for the clean start policy which I would be happy to contribute towards but will let others consider how to organize. I shall take time to re-review all points raised in my RFA and may return to some of the contributors for clarification.

I know that many people are against thankspam, so please consider this my personal thank you note if you took part. Fæ (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations (or commiserations, depending on your point of view)! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you need anything or to raid my monobook.js for some handy scripts. Have fun. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well done, here's the shirt  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Congrats! --joe deckertalk to me 01:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
'Grats and best wishes for a happy, productive adminsip! Jusdafax 08:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! Strikerforce (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sufi saint

I didn't think it was a credible assertion - Google just brings up lots of copies of the same non-RS text. There was no source, and it was heavily pov (perhaps I should have changed the reason to that instead of nn). I assume from the above (congratulations, I probably wouldn't get through these days) that you can restore it yourself. I have no objection if you think it's worth keeping or sending to AfD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I might go back a bit later on and offer to userfy a copy so that this new user can continue to work on it and attempt to find some sources. My intuition is that they would be better off writing about their village (which does appear to be in published sources) and any information about the local saint can be mentioned there without having to justify a stand-alone article. Thanks for getting back to me. Cheers Fæ (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GLAM ambassador userbox/topicon

Hi Fæ, I've just created a GLAM Ambassador userbox at {{User GLAM Ambassador}}. I was wondering if you'd be willing to put the topicon you'd created into either template ot userspace so that others can transclude and use it on their userpages. If you do so, please make sure it adds the pages to Category:GLAM Ambassadors. Best regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Laid up with a chest cold at the moment and spent most of the day in bed (really annoying and a bit silly as I've been wearing scarf inside the house when it's been so sunny outside). Have thought about a topicon before and delayed it as the GLAM 'register' was informal but it is probably timely and I will set up a template sometime tomorrow based on my alpha version. Your userbox might be easier to read if the id-c were to default to transparent. Cheers Fæ (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Up in the night, so have created {{GLAM Ambassador topicon}}. Tweaked the userbox code by removing the half-width option (it seems to display inconsistently depending on what skin you are using) and changing default colours to be higher contrast for easier reading. Fæ (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your Wiki-Guide work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think new users should be encouraged more to edit other articles and learn things about WP, before jamming a new article in. It's not suprrising that we see these hurt feelings when someone's Myspace band gets cut. We should stop pushing so hard for a behavior that we know will end this way. I'm not saying to REQUIRE apprenticeship...or to require starting articles in userspace. But to ENCOURAGE it. The standards of content on here have gone up and that is all for the good (of our READERS). We want to be more than a social networking site, that encourages lots of play. Some is allowable, but it is not the goal. The goal is to have CONTENT, not editors. So, a more realistic approach to mainstreaming people in would be useful and prevent some of the hurt feelings.TCO (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
And we might be losing some of the teenage boys to Facebook, forums, video games, Twitter, etc. But there is a whole untapped world of retirees and academics and the like. Who could do some SERIOUS content creation...if we could hook them in. IOW, it's not just how many new users we can get, but how man GOOD new users we can get. This is not ditchdigging here.TCO (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking socialising and play here - this is targeted specifically at those who try to create new articles. We shouldn't define it as "good" new users, because new users can't be expected to learn the rules right off the bat. As for apprenticeship; a user being personally contacted and walked through how to write a decent article on what they're interested in. What does that count as? Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We are on the same team, and I think welcome messages (or really personalized welcomes, from real people) could be a very good thing. I was just trying to raise up some things to think about. To step back and consider. And I respect that you are doing work! TCO (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to see userfication and it's probably an under-explained option when newer users see their articles deleted. I would have thought finding a way to track userfications (say, by asking everyone to add them to a category) would probably give you a larger and more consistent body of data? I'm in the Wiki Guides so I'll take a careful look through this sub-page in the next day or so. Fæ (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The International School @ ParkCity

Hi Fae

You are right. The school is being built as a through school and has both a primary and secondary section with 11-13 year olds being classed as secondary students rather than middle school students, the school will add on year 9 next year, year 10 the year after and so on until it has children from 2-18 years old. I think you will find that most new schools who open as through schools start off in this manner (for reference please look at Discovery College in Hong Kong). As the school is so new, I am struggling to find any references for it. Can you advise?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katewkl (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, having an AFD on the article gives no certainty of deletion and if the consensus is to keep, then this makes deletion the future unlikely. The discussion runs for at least 7 days and it would not hurt the discussion for you to add your opinion with any additional explanation you feel helps (particularly how many other high schools start in this way, if you can find some with articles this would be an excellent illustration). As for sources, there will be public documents relating to the authorities approving the school building and any associated plans for funding or approval of the school as an official organization. There may also be sources such as local newspapers or magazines that have sufficiently more context than being an advert, for them to be acceptable.
If the discussion goes towards deletion, then I would be happy to userfy a copy so that you can continue improving it and potentially re-issue the article after a bit of documented feedback. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats man

  • Good job on the election. I wonder if some of the kvetchers who wanted you to reveal your old account would also support a policy of admins having to declare real names and have reached majority. It is a logical followon from the idea that we should know the person getting the mop. I suspect many of them were just fishing and wanted some drama, some blood, a dustup. Thought about forum-spanking them, but figured it would not help the cause. Congrats again.TCO (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well done Fæ, welcome to the club - I've been here only 3 weeks and I can assure anyone who wants to know that it's no big deal. Coming alive out of the snake pit however, was one hell of a big deal - I know 'xactly how you must have felt and how you now feel. Don't ask me for any tips on adminship - I'm still feelin' my own way around! --Kudpung (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Fæ! You'll be listed in next week's Wikipedia:Signpost in the Features and admins section along with anyone else that gets promoted through RfA. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Who would have thought I would be news? By the way any advice on the security of HTTPS login? I'm using the British Library's free wifi and as a precaution not using my main account but if going via https solves the problem of potential snoopers it would make life a bit simpler. Good news here, English & Drama have committed to an event (likely in June) but we probably will make no statement suitable for the Signpost for another month. Cheers --Faelig (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are on a dodgy connection, use secure.wikimedia.org. These days you can't just login on secure, you have to do all your editing and browsing while logged in on secure, otherwise Firesheep-style exploits are possible. (One of these days, I'll find a simple, easy-to-read guide on how to setup OpenVPN...) Great news on the event! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask about it at the next meet-up (or the conference) as the current guidelines are not that clear and probably should say exactly what you have here. As there's some doubt in my mind I'll continue using my non-admin account when on public wifi (back on a physical connection now).
There might be an interesting twist to the sources if the BL event is an editathon (it's likely to be a combination of things) as some sources under discussion are confidential audio files of interviews with poets (only made a year ago) which by contract should not be transcribed, may include controversial information about living people, remain under copyright but might be consulted by researchers... They have a list of around 30 notable poets with no Wikipedia articles and we had an interesting discussion about how to manage the verifiability and notability issues that may arise, on top of that some of the poets are subject to censorship in other countries... all good stuff to throw into a workshop! --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This user has their own mop.

Congrats! It looks like someone already gave you the shirt so I brought your mop :) James (T C) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be so bitey

You tagged an article marked as "under construction" for speedy deletion under criteria A1 two minutes after its creation. [1] The guidelines at WP:CSD suggest waiting at least ten minutes to apply A1 or A3, and when a tag like that is placed on the article, probably waiting 20-30 minutes to see what gets added would be best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this one out. I would have been better off clarifying the situation as a G6 or ignoring it for a bit longer as you suggest (in line with my previous commitment on A1/A3). A slight correction, the article was not just marked as "under construction", these two words were its only content providing us no information about the intended article, leaving us with only the cryptic 4 letters "MCCI" (or Roman number) title to go on. I have left a positive offer of help for this user, see MEDD2012.
... I see the user has now explained that they saved this nil-content article by accident and is happy to see their mistake deleted. I'll take more care to avoid A1/A3 altogether, in practice I have preferred improvement notices rather than any type of speedy since my RFA. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That's OK, I probably forget sometimes and click "A1" or "A3" in Twinkle without checking the timestamp! Actually, including the words "under construction" is the same as havving {{underconstruction}} on it since new editors probably don't know about the template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ciedweb

Where can I be able to get a notable source from? Kevinmik (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your page. Fæ (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tools

What anti vandal software are you using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanygirl80 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on a MacMini and don't really want to run Windows in a simulator so I stick with IGLOO and Twinkle alongside my largish watch-list (I keep it trimmed to below 8,000 articles but sometimes use a script to add or refresh a category of articles at a time, particularly GLAM related). I would like to run a nicely configured version of Huggle but nobody seems to be interested in unpicking it from the grasp of Microsoft. Fæ (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
One day, once I know a bit more about C#, I so want to make Huggle work on the Mac, wrap it up with macpack and be able to Huggle from all my machines. (I have a separate Windows machine which I use for only two things: Visual Studio and Huggle.) Huggle is particularly good if you've got admin rights: once it reaches the point of AIVing, it just blocks instead (apparently, I wouldn't know). Have you tried STiki? That runs cross-platform and takes quite an interesting approach to anti-vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I did try STiki - refused to work for me, no idea why. After spending an hour or so trying to get it to work I gave up. The last time I programmed in C was probably when I used Pascal; it was the 1970s, computers were large beasts in the basement and people blew cigar smoke in your face during meetings. Fæ (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolness

Just to say I deleted it as a test page. Too coherent for nonsense, and not bad enough for real vandalism. Test page covers a wide range of things and is polite just in case it turns out to have been something genuine after all.... Peridon (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolz good move. BTW, I recognized the names being used which were identical to a hoax or nonsense article yesterday but under a different account. Consequently I suspect a pattern of sock accounts may be in operation. As it was such obvious nonsense I have not investigated further and would hope that these silly contributions go away out of boredom. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "E-Rehabilitation"

Dear Mr. Fae, I wish to bring up with you the editing that you have done to the “e-rehabilitation” article yesterday – which was newly uploaded as my 1st article on Wikipedia.

I have a differing viewpoint to your edit notings – however, instead of going ahead and re-editing the article once again, I first wanted to learn from your respected and more-experienced background on the reasons for the said curtailment of the article content.

The 1st paragraph of my article has been retained unchanged – however it has been preceded by a line which is as follows – “The term e-rehabilitation describes any form of remote rehabilitation methods as part of remote healthcare systems.” – alongwith addition of certain references for this line to replace the three references I had originally mentioned.

Sir, with due respect, I wish to submit that this form of “remote rehabilitation” would well be categorized under “Telerehabilitation” – an article on which is already published since long on Wikipedia.

It is instead the “e” as “encompassing rehabilitation” – which addresses rehabilitation as a non-clinical or a non-medical situation that lies at the heart of this new article – “E-rehabilitation”.

Infact in due course, I hope to be able to add furthermore referenced content for the same – which explains “encompassing rehabilitation” pertaining to an individual and that pertaining to the society as a whole – supported by factual instances of efforts around the world.

Infact the three examples cited by me (with due references given) - covered a set of diverse efforts initiated by unconnected agencies / organization at different times in history – from almost 100 years back to as recent as two decade back and the third being in-between more than four decades ago – and that too with varying background and interests – one is a non-religious setup recognized by UNESCO – “as a project of importance to the future of humanity”, another a corporate entity with a stated vision incorporated even as part of its name and the third is an educational institute extension of a religious sect with its stated objective to – “combine the pursuit of academic studies with sensibilities, moral and spiritual values” – and, hence the common link between all three being their aim towards achieving evolution of mankind – by making even the otherwise common masses of humanity realise into role models or ideal citizens.

I hope you understand my viewpoint on this – and agree with my suggestion that a lot of the removed content maybe re-added or reverted by me – alongwith shifting the reference to “remote rehabilitation” to the “Telerehabilitation” article – besides adding a noting in the “Rehabilitation” disambiguation page – explaining the difference between “encompassing rehabilitation and “e” as in “electronic (or remote) rehabilitation” – the latter being largely dependent on telecommunication technologies and hence better clubbed with “Telerehabilitation”.

I would look forward to your views on the above – before proceeding with the above or maybe as you may advise.

Regards, Jn.mdel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts before taking action. I'm taking a moment to read your statement properly.
 Done
Examining the case studies, which is probably the source of any misunderstanding here, one at a time (based on this version of the article):
  1. Dayalbagh Educational Institute describes itself as secular (though confusingly combined with "sensibilities, moral and spiritual values") and with an oddly stated mission to "evolve the superman of tomorrow" which probably has been taken from text written at the beginning or middle of last century. However a Google search of their website shows no matches to the term "e-rehabilitation" and consequently inclusion in this article (particularly with no sources to support any claim) fails to meet the original research policy.
  2. Auroville again there appear to be no sources to suggest that the Sri Aurobindo Society uses the term "e-rehabilitation" either on their own website or anywhere else in a published reliable source.
  3. MGRM describes some of their product range as related to health rehabilitation but a google search of their website shown no use of the term "e-rehabilitation". Their mission page includes poorly defined and quasi-religious statements that would probably damage their corporate brand in a fully international context - vision of “Ultimate Rehabilitation of the Human Race”, the mission “To make an individual, a Complete Personality” and the hope “May God Rehabilitate Mankind” - however nothing specific about e-rehabilitation as proposed.
My conclusion is that the case studies in no way support the original claims made. In particular the generic text outside of the examples such as “e-Rehabilitation” in its varied forms and names has always existed within mankind throughout the ages in what we commonly know as “culture” is unencyclopaedic and so vague as to be unsupportable.
My recommendation is to change the page into a redirect to telerehabilitation but will delay doing so until tomorrow so you have a chance to reply. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Fae,
I sincerely thank you for the elaborate reply you have so very kindly given even to a 1st timer like me – I am really encouraged by your initiative and this helps me to muster my faith in this article one more time – and present my counter-view to your reply before you decide to initiate any permanent changes / re-direction for this page – though I have only now had a chance to read through the other talk threads on your page which made me realize that I am in conversation with a person as senior as an “admin” – so it is all the more remarkable and assuring that your viewpoint would surely be well-balanced.
Permit me to say that I still strongly feel that clubbing or re-directing “e-Rehabilitation” to the “Telerehabilitation” page would for good put an end to this article and in-turn hurt the awareness about “encompassing Rehabilitation” – as for times to come it would first be misinterpreted as “electronic rehabilitation”. I agree that the term “e-Rehabilitation” may not per se be used on the mentioned websites – but it is actually the work or the mission adopted by these organizations which is meant to be put forth through to the readers. I am sure you agree – that whether one talks of “superman of tomorrow” or of “human unity” or of “an individual to become a complete personality” – all of these are still emphasizing upon working with the common people – and NOT WITH CLINICAL or MEDICAL cases – thus, supporting the validity of a distinction being made between “rehabilitation” as we understand normally (of which “telerehabilitation” forms a small subset) and that about “encompassing rehabilitation” – which is more about an integrated / inclusive / omni approach to an individual as part of his/her daily life.
I too myself am a loyal user of Google for my information needs – however, I feel for the present matter, would it not be much better if maybe these examples cited in the original article are themselves asked to elaborate / present their concurrence or a different opinion to what has been stated in the original article – by editing / adding to the said article because they know their respective missions best – and that too within a given limited time period of say, a week / fortnight – and thereafter depending upon their respective views and your neutral assessment of the same – then the article could be handled accordingly – modified, redirected or even deleted, as may be felt necessary. And in keeping with the necessity to elicit unbiased feedbacks, I suggest that if not me, maybe someone from your end or even your goodself could possibly initiate a “Request for Voluntary Review” of this article in its original form – to be sent to whatever publicly stated contact email-id is mentioned on these websites – with a timeline for revert within 7 / 15 days, if they are interested.
I think I can at the moment only put forth the above possible solution as my “support for the article claims” – which I am sure would eventually prove its “encyclopaedic” value very clearly and exhaustively but only once a start is made by nurturing it right.
I would respect and abide by your final views on the same.
Regards, Jn.mdel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
From your reply, it seems you are prepared to do the research for an article which might meet the notability criteria in the future but this might take a while. I recommend the following steps:
  1. A copy of the original version you created is userfied to your userspace (by me if you are not sure how to set this up) so that you can refine it in your own time, write to the organizations mentioned (if you wish to go this far) and search for unambiguous reliable sources that support this (apparently holistic and spiritual) usage of e-rehabilitation without feeling pressured by any particular arbitrary time-limit or speedy deletion process.
  2. I can leave a redirect for E-rehabilitation to Telerehabilitation which, for the time being, leaves the page history intact should you wish to refer to it and when you have finished finding sources can easily be converted back into a stand-alone article with a disambiguation link at the top to avoid any confusion.
  3. When you are ready you can put the revised article up for review which avoids later debate with others about possible deletion. A suitable review process for drafts is available at WP:RFF though you may find that leaving a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality would attract someone who might be more familiar with the topic and may even be prepared to help with your research.
To my mind this seems equitable without having to debate why the article is spending too long in a state of construction when it might be validly marked at any time for deletion on the basis of appearing to be either a non-notable neologism or unverifiable due to a lack of unambiguous reliable sources.
If you have no strong objection in the next few hours then I'll proceed on this basis. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Fae,
I am really thankful for sparing me the pressure of a deadline by your suggested methodology. I would surely try and follow that.
Just one request – is it possible that till such time, the first line later added in the article - “The term e-rehabilitation describes any form of remote rehabilitation methods as part of remote healthcare systems.” alongwith its references could be removed – so as to maintain a status-quo – with maybe only that one paragraph retained as a stand-alone article for the moment, even if the original article cannot be reverted completely at this stage.
Why I am suggesting is that, I have found one possible support reference till now - http://www.hindustantimes.com/Bhutan-s-crowning-glory/Article1-205651.aspx - an article dated 14-feb-2007 by an important personality in Indian scene which appeared in India’s leading national newspaper, The Hindustan Times. This article by the author describes his views on two topics – and it is in the latter part of his article, he describes his assessment for one of the three examples cited by me.
I hope you could peruse this link and take the appropriate decision – meanwhile, I would get down to getting more information.
Regards, Jn.mdel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Hindustan Times article includes the proprietary term "Ultimate Rehabilitation" rather than e-rehabilitation and so does not appear to support the terminology. Rather than leaving any debatable text, I shall add the redirect as mentioned above. Thanks Fæ (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Fae,

I was quite taken aback by the last update from your end – wherein you have now completely removed all content from the “E-rehabilitation” page – and simply made it into a re-direct to “Telerehabilitation”. As repeatedly requested and humbly submitted by me, I sincerely hope that “E-rehabilitation” does not begin being misinterpreted as “electronic rehabilitation” – owing to the huge reputation and following of Wikipedia world over every single moment in time.

And the fact is – as discovered by me on the web ever since your last post - that even this co-relation of “E-rehabilitation” (as “electronic rehabilitation”) to “Telerehabilitation” is not exactly well supported. I have myself googled for “electronic rehabilitation” + “telerehabilitation” – both criteria together and with quotes – and believe me there were just 4 results and these too convey a distinction between “Telerehabiitation” as being extension of rehabilitation service remotely and “electronic rehabilitation” as being various possible electronics, software and/or electronic records tools – which may or may not be for rehabilitation per se – thus, not really supporting the line which had been added – “The term e-rehabilitation describes any form of remote rehabilitation methods as part of remote healthcare systems”. Also, furthermore, I have also perused the reference article for this line which was listed by you – therein also “e-rehabilitation” has been interpreted as “email rehabilitation” – hence, by that logic, then tomorrow “m-rehabilitation” would only imply “mobile rehabilitation” – whereas actually all these specifics are only very, very small individual subsets of the larger topic “Telerehabilitation” – which has already been categorised as a “WikiProject – Medicine” article since 2006/07 – hence, I strongly feel, we cannot allow terms like “e-rehabilitation” or “m-rehabilitation” be appropriated to such small interpretations (and that too when they are already covered under the industry’s accepted larger term “Telerehabilitation” – even on Wikipedia since 2006).

Notwithstanding above, I had also initiated my own efforts to find as many support references as possible for my article – and that too very, very quickly – so as to retain “E-rehabilitation” as a rightful stand-alone article for “encompassing rehabilitation” and to this effect I am happy to state that I have found quite some amount of independent, credible information in support of the same – which I am just mentioning as links in your talk page right now - so as to keep this note brief: http://www.usc.edu/projects/rehab/research/ (from University of Southern California about encompassing nature of rehabilitation), http://www.mgrm.com/businesses/net.html (from MGRM website about their proprietary MEP and MIP process) , http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-practice-of-scientology/comparison-to-other-practices.html (from Scientology website - about “Auditing” process practiced – similar to MEP and MIP), also http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs-and-practices/what-are-the-religious-tenets-of-scientology.html

My only submission is that I now intend to remove the re-direct from the “E-rehabilitation” page – and furthermore also add in due course more content to this article from the above-mentioned links - as well as from other newer sources I come across during my search.

I respect your experience and neutral point of view – and hope that you would now agree that the article can be retained as a stand-alone article – as because the immediate intention is to prevent any misinformation or misconceptions being formed about the article’s topic – which is so very relevant and important to humanity as a whole and even accepted by all that in one form or the other this has always been there - but for which direct word-by-word references as “supports for the article claims” are still hard to come by at this stage – but nevertheless I am continuing my efforts.

Hence, request you to please support my efforts to resurrect the article.

Furthermore, I have copy-pasted the earlier talk exchanges about “E-rehabilitation” from your user talk page to the article’s talk-page also – and would now be copy-pasting this particular note on both these pages – and thereafter intend to do it at the article talk-page only – hope you agree.

I am looking for your review and encouragement.

Regards,Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Fae,

I request for your kind perusal of the updated article - which I have substantially updated and even proposed a name change. I have consciously not removed the “proposed for deletion” flag – pending your perusal of the article.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check for File:Lemonade-somebody.jpg

Hi there. Do you mind checking the OTRS permissions on File:Lemonade-somebody.jpg? As far as I can tell, the OTRS tag was placed by the same user who uploaded the image, and a public domain grant for a Disney-owned album cover is almost completely unbelievable. Thanks, Zachlipton (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at the email and it appears highly dubious and without a properly worded release. I believe an error has been made here and I'll raise for discussion on the OTRS noticeboard. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this out. I actually thought the OTRS tag was just copy/pasted from another file, but in any event, I'm sure this will get sorted out. If the license grant does turn out to be bogus, it's probably worth checking into the user's other contributions as well. Zachlipton (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That's correct - there seemed to be two separate problems, I have raised this note for a consensus on the OTRS ticket and I have removed the ticket from Lemonade-somebody.jpg as the source was not the Flickrstream mentioned in the ticket. It appears that this uploader has misapplied the ticket. I'll add them to my watch-list to see if they pop up again. Fæ (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Perrins

Just to let you know, the History Today article has proved very useful at Isaac Perrins, a new article that I started 24 hours ago. There's a cracking DYK hook in there if I can be bothered to pursue it - "the knock-kneed hammerman" is typical Victorian OTT phrasing! Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ESCOM page, edits, vandalism...

Dear Fæ, sorry for the hassle at the recently created page for ESCOM. I can see from the editing history, that my edits had been labeled "vandalism"... No such intention, I falsely assumed there had been an editing conflict that had resulted in the reappearance of those tags. So I tried to delete them again...

The page itself I think meets the notability criteria, as ESCOM is the main organisation in that field in Europe and one of the biggest in the world, in that scientific field (300+ members, organise conferences for 400+ people, publish a high-class journal, established 20 years ago...). I'm a member of it, I hope that doesn't contribute to me being biased. The page was initiated by the current sec gen of the organisation (louhivuo), but the text looked neutral enough. I could take the responsibility of editing it to meet other criteria better (structuring it etc.), I hope that's OK. I did encourage him to start the page and put something in, to get the ball rolling.

I think references might be somewhat problematic here, as their own website is very bad and has limited amounts of information. Their old site had a section on history etc., but it has been taken down. I'll see what I can find. Are there any guidelines here, when the information and its correctness is so easily verified directly from the people operating the organisation, but where not much has been published separately? They publish scientific research, have done that for 20 years, but not stuff on themselves...

Thanks for your help,

Tijh (talk)

The article needs to unambiguously meet the notability criteria (WP:ORG) and the improvement notices are intended to attract other editors to help achieve that. Repeatedly removing improvement notices without fixing the problem (or explaining why) is treated as vandalism. It may be self-evident to members that ESCOM is notable, however independent reliable sources must be added to demonstrate significant impact beyond the organization's website or its own publications. If the organization claims to be the biggest in the world, then if there are no independent sources that do more than give tangential mentions or publicize the conferences there would seem to be something rather odd about such statements.
The article is not up for deletion so you have an indefinite amount of time to improve the sources and search out truly independent references, please leave the improvement notices in place in the meantime to attract others who might collaborate on the article. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll keep working on it. Tijh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

Endihran

Ya the spelling was wrong, so I tried to redirect the page to the right spelling but that was already taken. So i need a placeholder so i just named it something obscure so I can move it to the right spelling. However it did not work so I tried my best to put it back. Sorry! Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wyncandy writes...

...Thank you for your patience and advice. As I learn more about Wikipedia, I hope my edits make a real contribution to its project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyncandy (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

Last time we spoke we were talking about QR Codes - We have made some progress. See the guest slot at GLAMDERBY for details. You can get a peek preview here. It looks normal. If you try it it will give you a wiki page in English. Now, change the language setting on your smart phone to any language you can think of .... it should still work. Victuallers (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to talk through a demo (no smart phone yet), perhaps the upcoming AGM in association with your talk would be a good time to show it off and discuss some of the options for any further technical support or possibilities to promote it as an interactivity solution more widely? I've been pondering some of the non-GLAM projects which may be getting less volunteer oxygen recently... Fæ (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Poderedellaluna

I've moved this from your user page. It looked like vandalism so I rollback'd it, but it isn't, so I'm copying it here. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out, I think we can safely assume good faith. Fæ (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fæ.. Its me again Poderedellaluna, struggeling with the text about The Blackbird, the Black Stone Violin! I finally managed to put 4 photos, after following Your instructions.. Thanks! I placed it at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Blackbird._Black_and_white_photo._2jpg There is more photos numbered 1-3jpg and another named The Blackbird.on Red Velvet!jpg Maybe You could be so kind to look at it in commons! I placed also the text (renewed!)about the Violin there and I would be happy if text and photos somehow could be connected.. Apear on the same page! Iam hopeless with thouse things.. And I do hope one day the article would be accepted.. What do You think? You seams to be the only wikiperson talkable.. I realy appreciate You doing this and Your work.. Mille gratie, Poderedellaluna (LW)Poderedellaluna (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(otherwice Iam now in Italy, Pietrasanta. Taking part in the RBS exh called "Royal British Society of Sculptors Members Working in Pietrasanta"-long name but nice exhibition of our sculptures. In the Chiostro di Sant,Agostino! U can probably see it on: www.museodeibozzetti.it or thru RBS..)

I have had a quick look at your uploaded photos, they might be challenged at some point as you were not the photographer and so it is not clear whether you are the full copyright holder. If you want the photos to be unchallengable it would be best to email permissions(at)commons.org from your official email address with a release statement using the text at WP:CONSENT as a template, this would ensure that a verification ticket can be added to the photos.
You might find it helpful to have another look at WP:ARTIST, in particular criteria number 4 might be a rationale to have an article about your work on Wikipedia, though as noted previously it might have to be trimmed down to just be the "encyclopaedic" content rather than anything that might be interpreted as promotional or purple prose. If the exhibitions you are involved with are a permanent part of the public gallery/museum or the exhibition is of international significance (as shown in independent reliable sources) then there may be much stronger grounds to try and re-create an article. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fæ.. Iam very sorry if I did vandalism on Your page! Iam ashamed but not surpriced.. I realy shouldnt do this things- Iam better with chisel and hammer =stone age.. I do apologize, just wanted to talk to U.. Iam greatful to this helpful man Tom Morris as well for reparing my doings! Thanks!

As U know me little by now I'm going through your wiki-pedia, not by foot but tractor.. Anyway, thanks again for being my adviser and I will do my best to rewrite my text and bring it out of the Purple Rain.. The photografer is a very good friend and he tock thouse photos for free and said I can use them as I like.. It was originaly made for a poster of a galleri in Mexico but they postpone the violin exhibition, so far.. I have it on a very free licence! But I copyed the page U mentioned and I will email the licence as U suggested- to Commons (?).. I would be very happy if I could email U too, directly.. then I wouldnt be able to damage something unconsciously! I will try..

The Museum in Pietrasanta is very nice and well worth a visit.. Its a sketch museum on the first floor- artist working in Pietrasanta area donated their plaster sketches/sculptures after having them made in Marble, Stone or Bronze.. On the ground floor they have variuos exhibitions- like the one Iam part of now! Its a marbles and bronze exhibition, runs until the 17th april.. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poderedellaluna (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A hacker on an article (Ayman Lotfy)

Dear Fae, thanks for reverting the edits of a hacker (Sawah ya lil) on an article that I contributed with (Ayman Lotfy). This is a pure hatred attack with false data. Thanks for wikipedia police!! (Saharnsaleem (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

No problem. If the attacks seem persistent or someone appears to be using sock puppet accounts, drop me another note to take a look as the page may not remain on my watchlist but short term semi-protection may be an option. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply and watch..I will contact you if such action is repeated..semiprotection is a great option. Have a great time! (Saharnsaleem (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

new page Political financing in Canada

Hi Fæ,

I was just starting an article for Political financing in Canada - as that subject is really not covered at all in Wikipedia - when I saw that you had already tagged it for speedy deletion.

Thank you for referring me to the page Canadian_politics#Party_funding_reform. There is indeed a section on that page that very briefly mentions party funding reform, but actually half of it is actually about another subject (the leaders' debate). I'll probably go and separate that out into its own section on the page as it has nothing to do with party funding. So there are in fact only 4 short paragraphs that are actually about party funding and they are very cursory and incomplete (10 sentences in all).

I will continue the work on the new page, for which I have already done many hours of preparatory work. If you could remove the speedy deletion tag, it would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Justinform (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are working on it. Can I suggest getting it up to speed first in your userspace at which time it would be obvious that it is more than a content fork from Canadian politics? This would take the pressure off you having lots of improvement tags. In the meantime I'll remove the speedy and add an under construction notice (though my recommendation for best practice would be to draft first). Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops, someone else just deleted it. I'll userfy a copy for you momentarily... Fæ (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Enthiran GA review

I may have forgotten to put it in the review, but after noting it initially I asked the nominator about the issue - he assured me it was a past issue from the time of the film's release, and had ceased since. I'd assumed as much at first but noted the history just in case it was still ongoing, but took the nominator's word that it was over. I'll go make a note in the review of this now. GRAPPLE X 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources that are used for gross right now mention both "total gross" of 375 and "net gross" of 179. This seems to be something particular to Indian cinema. Would you happen to know which of these figures is typically used as the gross in Indian cinema articles? Perhaps mentioning this in the article and listing both figures could put an end to the confusion. BollyJeff || talk 12:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I previously added the 'disputed' notice at the top of the article in order to encourage a wider discussion about the meaningfulness of these figures; unfortunately Eelamstylez77 removed the notice just before raising the article for GAR and effectively forced a premature closure of the discussion intended to resolve the stability issue (at which point I sort of washed my hands of the article for a while and left them to it). It is now a bit of an embarrassment that the article has been classed as GA whilst the long term edit-warring continues.
375 crore is a promotional estimate and not based on any verifiable published figures. Personally I would prefer it removed altogether as there is a doubtful argument that the 375 figure is any more valid than other estimates available in other sources of 400 crore, 250 crore or 179 crore. The terms total gross or net gross are meaningless as without any published figures there is no way to judge what the associated tax or other liabilities might be. Fæ (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't we have this discussion already concerning List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, and you (or someone else) said it was okay to use estimated figures in individual films but not in list form? There has to be a permanent solution, else no Indian cinema articles can reach GA in your eyes. BollyJeff || talk 12:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That was a discussion about the copyright of creative lists, this is a slightly different matter of what would be good practice for a GA class article. Any estimated figure is contentious for the box office income for Enthiran. For the article to become stable it would seem likely that a long discussion and examination of alternatives is needed. Cherry picking the figure of 375 crore from the promoter's campaign is easy to challenge as the single estimate of income when other figures are available. A solution may be to include an estimated range or add a section to the article explaining the issue about problematic box office income figures. Fæ (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem more sensible to continue any discussion about solving this stability issue on the article talk page rather than here. Any discussion might then usefully be the start of an RFC (or some other proposal/consensus process) to put the matter to bed. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved to here. BollyJeff || talk 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadako_Sasaki

Hi :)

You left me a warning about unconstructive edits, presumably an edit conflict between us both reverting vandalism to this article? Could you double-check what I reverted please, just to make sure I didn't do anything silly?

Regards, CaptRik (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Already done thanks, you have made no mistake and the user warning has been deleted. Sorry, these edit glitches are rare but they do happen. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re. Extremist Journal

This journal is released to make Muslims barbarians against Ahmadis. When a Muslims will read this type of jounral what will he do. Tell me?? Will he not kill the Ahmadis and is this not the terroism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

When a Muslim will read this journal and then he will not kill the Ahmadis and it this not terroism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter and (luckily) I have no grasp of what might make someone feel they have a right to randomly kill people they do not know. Personally I do not find it credible that this can be as simple as publishing some articles in a journal. If you think it is encyclopaedic to call a publication a terrorist journal then please provide independent reliable and unbiased sources so that it can be verified, you might find the policy of WP:V helpful. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Creator of North of welfare state

I believe this is the talk page you were looking for. After I moved the page, I somehow became the creator of the article in the history. Hmm...--NortyNort (Holla) 10:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an (apparently) unavoidable glitch with Twinkle when multiple editors are doing things within a few seconds of each other. The page in question duplicates an existing article, but as the creator has blanked the problem will probably sort itself out without much more intervention. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. Good pick up on the duplicate, I didn't notice.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbella Shopping Center

Hi Fae I created this new article but I need some help finding more sources and some more of the origin story.Thisbites (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sent you an email with some LexisNexis results. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Highest Grossing Bollywood Films

How do you say that the current page is free from copyright issue? I think that the person who has post the current data is a fan of Shahrukh khan. The page seems to be a vandalism.Geocraze (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Reply me.. Geocraze (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to say. I do not say the current page is free from copyright issues, there has been a lengthy discussion about copyright of the creative lists underpinning the article as per the links on the article talk page. I have no insight as to the motivation of other editors and do not see it as relevant to whether the article meets policy or not. Your changes re-added text that was agreed by consensus on the article talk page to remove, I suggest you discuss the changes you would like to see on the talk page if you wish to reach an alternative local consensus. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in refs

I appreciate your efforts to provide references for Berkeley Partners for Parks (and your efforts in rescuing the article), but it's probably not advisable to put quotes in refs; we'll take your word for it in any case, and the potential for copyright issues has always caused more than essential quotes to be avoided. In any case, it becomes a slippery slope to massive references that dwarf the content, something generally not required even in academic referencing. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page before seeing this comment. In short I disagree and find your approach to be discouraging improvement to what is likely to become an entirely valid encyclopaedic article. I do not believe your changes are based on any firm policy grounds. --Fæ (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:QUOTEFARM; all that verbage is unnecessary (really, I trust you) from a verification point of view and from a clutter point of view, and is an example of overcopying of copyrighted material that is not essential to the article. You might want to ask Moonriddengirl for her opinion: this is her field. You seem to be assuming that because I nominated it for deletion, I'd like for the article to go away: I'd rather it be kept, assuming it can show that the organization is notable. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I am fully aware of QUOTEFARM, in my opinion the essay is a poor match to this situation. The article is not a quotefarm and the essay section you point to does not put this in the context of citations in footnotes. The quotations give a context to each footnote it is used within and without any quotation it is not clear why most of these citations support the text they have been placed against, hence damaging the verifiability of the article. In some cases I have taken quotes from article not freely available online and so the quote is essential for the layman reader to understand why a newspaper article with a title that may not even mention the organization has been included. I am happy to see you would like the article to be kept, but I don't see you giving this as your opinion in the AFD you have raised and your persistence in blanking valid information from the article without advance discussion still appears overzealous even with your explanation. In accordance with BRD I suggest I go ahead and revert, should you object you are welcome to approach MRG for an opinion rather than re-deleting and I would be happy to collaborate on alternative approaches to improve the article rather than just deleting context and encyclopaedic information. Fæ (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and self-reverted; I'd rather we put all this effort into improving the article than typing a wall of text, and I fear you're misinterpreting my motivations here. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the option to self-revert. I am not speculating as to motivation, the term "overzealous" only relates to the timing and context of your changes and impact in terms of potentially discouraging improvement by the well intentioned article creator. It's late for me so unless you do so beforehand I'll leave a brief note for MRG tomorrow to see if she wishes to provide any advice. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD comments

Regarding this:

While I don't otherwise know you from Adam, your behaviour on that AfD would make me less inclined to consider your position as a strong one. There are other editors on that discussion whom I would warrant are routinely ignored by closing admins by virtue of their scattershot approach to making keep arguments, even if they are not acting in bad faith as it is commonly understood.

Anyway, I didn't offer an explanation of my comments regarding consensus because I desired to be passive-aggressively badgered on them on that AfD, especially after your having opened with a quip about making comments "in a civil and respectful way". We've both said our bit and should probably both disengage from that discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not have bothered replying had you not made such a strange statement and been speaking from a position of authority. AFDs should never be closed on the basis of reputation of contributors. Should a rationale of the "reputation" of contributors ever affect an AFD outcome over being based on the merit of the arguments presented, then I would be happy to take such cases to DRV as being explicitly counter to existing policy. With regard to calling my comments passive-aggressive, this is of course impossible to defend against, so you are welcome to see the world that way if that is what makes you tick. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Are you saying the infobox should list his mother's birth name? If so, just change it to that and keep the wikilink to her article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I am not sure of the answer, that's why I marked it as needing a citation. Her name at the time of his birth could have either legally been her birth name or the name she took (Jochebed) when she was a member of the Children of God. Similarly his Father's name may be doubtful as listed. Marking the doubtful information as citation needed seems a reasonable step to take in order to ensure someone will check this out in detail and provide reliable sources which I do not have. Are you prepared to revert or solve the problem? Removing improvement tags without solving the problem would be something I would have expected you to want to avoid. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Does it really matter what the name was at the time of his birth? Just remove the names from the infobox if you really want to. The fact tag doesn't really explain why it is there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If that is your only objection then it is easily fixed by adding a 'reason' parameter. I'll revert and do exactly that. Fæ (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Pace Law School.

With all due respect to your administrative position your undoing of my edit is uncalled for. The information that was entered is independently verifiable, a link was included for additional information verifying my contribution. Please explain your actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.25.199 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and User:Fæ/Alumni - random lists of alumni are not an excuse to add non-notable names to articles. If you believe this Adjunct Professor is notable, then please create an article first and then add his name to the list. Don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'random alumni' as you say and notable professors. Joshua Stein is a 1981 graduate of Columbia Law School who is a leading authority within commercial real estate law. As stated in my undo his written work has been used as reference at the firm I currently work at. Creation of an article specifically about him will take much more time than I currently have available. Please explain how 'Nicholas A. Robinson - Professor of Law, Pioneer of Environmental Law' is allowed per your standards but my edit is not? In my opinion your edit hampers community involvement and contribution of information. 96.239.25.199 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I still suggest you try creating an article about this person you believe is notable. Being a graduate or an author on commercial real estate law is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability. As for Robinson, I agree and have deleted that unsourced name from the same list. If you need help creating an article, I suggest you set up an account and then it would be possible for me to help you with some guidelines for creating a userspace draft. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "being a graduate or author is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability", this is why I think a stand alone entry would be weak. This person is notable to two communities, those who are seeking information on or are involved Pace Law, and those who involved with commercial real estate law. Professor Stein has "edited and wrote much of the New York State Bar Association's two-volume treatise on Commercial Leasing (2004) and has published more than 150 articles, checklists and other materials on commercial real estate law and practice. Some of his articles have won awards, including a 2002 Burton Award recognizing clarity and simplicity in legal writing." Pace Law has access to excellent adjunct professors who are well known in their respective areas of practice. This is the reasoning for my contribution, to make information known to a community available to a wider audience. I "add[ed] verifiable and factual information", unfortunately it was not good enough for your standards. As a separate question, Professor Robinson, is in fact a Pioneer of Environmental law, how is this information to be included about the university short of creating separate entries for all notable persons? 96.239.25.199 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A similar rationale could be made for a very large number of people who are or have ever been connected with this school. If you are not prepared to create articles for people you consider notable, then I suggest you add their names to the long and inconsistently sourced list at List of Pace University people. For a list of names to be embedded in the parent article, restricting the list to those names with existing articles seems entirely reasonable in order to avoid it failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY and an easy demonstration of notability rather than debating every entry and the adequacy of sources cited against each name. As for the usefulness of the article, if people are searching for information on staff at the school I would expect them to check the profiles at the official website (as linked in the article) rather than rely on a Wikipedia article for all their information which will constantly be out of date in comparison and by policy should only include information that is considered encyclopaedic (staff lists which change every few months are not of sufficient long term historic impact to be the content of any encyclopaedia). Fæ (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

why didn't you take that attack straight out? Left the mop in the cupboard? ;) Peridon (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Which page was that - I've blitzed through quite a few new pages this morning? Fæ (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
James Water, I think. Silly little thing, really, but could upset a sensitive kid. Peridon (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Small w in Water. Peridon (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty mild for these sorts of things so blanking was sufficient to remove from sight and though unlikely might have turned out to be something more than a probable PA. As an example I have just repaired rather than nominated Tickle Monsters which was absolute nonsense but might now have a chance at establishing notability. Plus I suspect I lack the spleen to endlessly argue the case for the minor but not insignificant number of early deletions that bounce back even when they start as blatant violations. If they have matured (or festered) for an hour or a day rather than 2 minutes then deletion becomes somewhat unchallengeable. Hmm, it would be neat if IGLOO had a "show me articles created 10 minutes ago that look like BLP violations" feature rather than showing them within seconds of creation. Fæ (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to jump in quickly on 'nonsense' pages. Very few actually fit the criteria, and some have gone on to be stubs (and one or two proper articles) after I've palmed them off onto someone. As to IGLOO, I'm still largely rather primitive and haven't entered the tool-using stage. I've got Twinkle, which is handy for AfD starting and occasional warnings, but I can put a subst thing quicker manually. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DGSHS

I have to apologize for extending that reference to the two (obviously) unsupported alumni. It was a few days ago, and I don't have an easy explanation as to why I did that ... LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I had no idea it was your addition. You might find User:Fæ/Alumni interesting though I feel I ought to revisit and extend it as an essay, particularly as the template I created {{alumni}} has extended to general names and resident lists. You appear experienced but let me know if there is anything about such embedded lists that you would like to discuss further. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Director candidacy/ Quality processes

Hello Fae, since your clarification I now see that there is not really a disagreement between us: we are both working to involve experts in improving Wikipedia and seeking ways to build their confidence in the projects. Hence I've removed the mention of a disagreement from my candidate statement. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think there is an interesting topic of discussion around GLAM and expert related staging processes that might be used as part of future GLAM or chapter initiatives (a discussion I would definitely like to have) but I would not want the meeting this weekend to get hijacked by what is probably a slightly tangential or liminal topic.
In particular I agree that "content creation" is outside the domain of direct chapter interest though the area is a bit more muddy if the chapter is to promote and possibly sponsor content creation events (like the British Library edit-a-thon) and thus at the same time be an authority that recommends these working practices to other organizations. I would not be against clarification in the longer term, in practice it may well be than WMUK would want to "formally" separate itself from content advice given by "ambassadors" (GLAM or otherwise) even when that person might be at the same time a WMUK director or more generically even when an event or the activity of an "ambassador" is sponsored wholly or in part by WMUK.
The area feels a little bit like how in the commercial world a third party independent certification body might oversee second party contractors without taking any liability for the advice given or services provided. Fæ (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Najee Anthony Sneed

HANG ON....DONT DELETE NAJEE ANTHONY SNEED HE IS A PRO BASKETBALL PLAYER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALTCLYDE10 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

HANG ON... DO NOT DELETE Najee Anthony Sneed because he is a pro basketball player and his videos are on youtube and he will be star in the basketball world... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALTCLYDE10 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From the current article wording, the emphasis seems to be that he might be a star in the future. This fails the policy of WP:FUTURE. However if you can find some reliable sources to help support an argument of notability (even just one good one (youtube or facebook is not that good, see WP:RS)) then there would be no problem keeping and improving the article. By the way, I have flagged the article for attention, it would be someone independent that would review the notice and decide if it was suitable to be kept or not. Fæ (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley Partners for Parks

Ignore Acroterion's misleading comment about copyright quotes and citations. A quoted source is less of a legal problem than a paraphrase, and quotes within citations less still than inline, as the name of the source is right in the citation itself (but put a dash and then the name of the source, too. -Source). Brevity, however, is a concern for me. Paraphrase to make the reference shorter when possible and quote only what is needed to show the point. Thanks, Anarchangel (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree about length and probably as a result of rushing the job it was easier to quote more from the newspapers rather than less. The issue was reviewed by Moonriddengirl with similar conclusions and my remaining bug is that WP:QUOTE does not really address the point and neither does WP:NPS so that people like Acroterion who want to highlight such a problem do not have a comfortable guideline to point to. At some point I might return to this area to encourage a consensus definition but it's on the back burner for the moment. By the way, Acroterion had a point and I was overly quick to shoot them down, were I to do this again I'd try and be nicer about it. In the meantime BPFP ought to be edited down and I'm hoping that Thisbites will gradually integrate the material of the footnoted quotes into the article otherwise I will revisit it in a few weeks for a poke. Fæ (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an unrealistic standard that you know as well as I do will not be met. I would suggest placing a little more trust in human nature. Removing names not currently cited will reduce the quality of the article. Leaving the tag there permanently is pointless, ugly, and disruptive. But you have policy on your side, so I know there is no point in fighting you. Wikipedia's policies are often so dumb, and they make me wonder why I bother to try to help this dysfunctional mess. I am going to stop. Congratulations on using policy against me to drive away a user who has made several thousand useful edits in good faith. You might like to note that the head of Wikimedia recently noted the continuing fall in the rate of editor retention as wikipedia's key problem. But you have policy on your side, so why should you care about that? Wimstead (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Replied on the article talk page, Talk:Sylvia Young Theatre School. Fæ (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Illyrians

Thanks you for your intervention at Illyria. However, the same problem exists over at Illyrians. Some form of protection may be in order. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, protected the latter article for a slightly longer period as it has a history of protection. Hopefully this will encourage some discussion rather than further warring. If I'm not about and it kicks off again, it's worth dropping a note at WP:RPP. Cheers Fæ (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Forgot to mention Illyrian movement [2]. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not done this time. One editor alone (and no suspicious anon IPs repeating the same edits) is a poor rationale for protection as if they edit war then they can be blocked without stopping anyone else from contributing. I'm out and about having a long weekend away but will add it to my watch-list to see if it pops up next week, don't get tempted to revert too many times within 24 hours --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Done now though, seeing as an anon IP popped up as with the other articles... Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm pretty sure it's the same user, who is doing it to circumvent 3RR. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'll avoid taking part in fixing the problems to stay uninvolved for the moment, but will keep these on my watchlist. Seeing some work going on, I suspect there are enough interested experienced editors to sort things out and provide a stable baseline version before protection expires. Fæ (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Expatial

Hi. This came up for deletion as an expired PROD, and in fact I deleted it before looking at the talk page, which was a mistake, as I see it had been PRODded before and dePRODded (by the PRODder) after a comment from the author. Although it has no chance, and I thought of muttering "IAR" to myself and leaving it deleted, I feel a need to be punctilious about the deletion process, so I have resuscitated it and sent it to AfD here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Share your thoughts...

Hi Fae, I've made a small discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Notable filmographies. Please share your thoughts. Thanks! EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

help getting a score from the British Library?

Fae: Can you help somehow to get a copy (photocopy?) of this score: [3]. User:Adam Cuerden (FS director and sound expert) will make a sound recording and then it will be put into Myrrha. (I'll probably put it in the composer's article and start a short one on the piece as well, to get EV.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

No problem, though it might take a while as the best way of doing this is for me to ask for the score and photocopy it in the reading room (8 pages and maybe WMUK could chip in with the 22p/page costs - I have put in a general microgrant to do it). The only fly in the ointment would be if the BL staff think there is some copyright applying but my assumption is that if the musician died in 1928 and the score was published in 1932 that there is no copyright. I'm popping into the BL about once a month so it may be a few weeks before I get around to it, let me know if someone else sorts it out in the meantime. Fæ (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I can pay for the copies. Let's figure out the rights before wasting your time. Who would be a good expert? I don't have a backup to sort it out, other than doing without.TCO (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A request at WP:CP would give a firm answer - though if the BL staff member starts quibbling and wants a copyright sticker paid for then it would be kyboshed even if they were blatantly incorrect, in practice I would hope that I sound like I know what I'm doing and that tends to sidestep any silly problems. Fæ (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I asked at CP and at Village Pump for Commons (they have a lot of rights expertise).TCO (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on comments from CLineberg, I think copyright is fine. Get's a little complicated, see village pump thread and his talk page for details. Do not think you would be wasting your time to get the sheet music, both for use to make a recording and even to upload the sheets themselves.
Cool, it's in line with my expectation. I'll try and work out how to get some scans rather than photocopies, it may take me a few weeks until I'm there again. Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. Think it will be a neat collaboration of multiple users and maybe a little innovative to use music in an article for something other than the composer/composition itself (but it is not "background music").TCO (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
British Library 004167491 ordered for tomorrow. I can only look at this in Rare Books & Music, so hopefully there is a scanner I can use there rather than just photocopies. I note you are on a break, feel free to email me as an alternative. Cheers Fæ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
TCO is on wikibreak until the end of the month due to RL stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries, if I manage to get hold of the copies tomorrow (and there are no copyright issues), I'll contact Adam Cuerden as an alternative with a link to the file on Commons. Fæ (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Eek, the Music reading room was full today which made things awkward. I had a chat with a member of staff about copying the manuscript and they will insist that it will be copied by the staff rather than self-copying which rather increases the costs. As a result I have not done this today but would be prepared to try again if the money side is sorted out. Fæ (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, Fæ.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is in recognition of your outstanding vigilance. I don't know how you can manage to delete an attack page before I even notice it! For your efforts defending Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar! illogicalpie 18:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Excellent User Page Award
One of the best user pages I've seen which makes it easy for people to conribute to articles of topics that intrest you. It is also very well formated. Well done and thank you for your contributions. Oddbodz (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Oddbodz! --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just an update

Hi, I thought I'd just drop you a line on progress with Isaac Perrins. You may recall that you were able to provide me with an article from History Today not too long ago. Well, it came good ... as in a WP Good Article, so thanks again for your help. I may try pushing for FAC with this but suspect it is a bit thin, although there really is nothing more to be found about the guy. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, congratulations on getting to GA. It would be neat if someone could track down some extra photographs, such any buildings that still exist of where he worked or other related paintings (I note there are some photos on the Soho Foundry article that might help). Fæ (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That's worth a shot, although the pub apparently disappeared longer ago than anyone can remember. I'll dig into it. What I really want is pics of the medals: there are loads of them online but all copyrighted due to being online shops etc, whilst the ones in books are very poor quality. I might have to buy one and photo it myself! - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to pass on sneaky thoughts, but I'd be tempted to view some for sale and ask if I could take a photo for a friend who might be interested. There's no implicit contract in such a situation and the only possible copyright would be yours by taking the photo. However it's sneaky and generally I'd rather just ask up front by sending out several email requests, it only takes one person to surprise you by being all for it, get excited about helping with a Wikipedia article for a topic they love and they might then make suggestions for other objects to photograph or even email you some photos of their own. Fæ (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Colm Tobin

I Fæ, I revert the addition of the tag on the article, my thinking is that such tags are not needed since this being a wiki its implied, and they are just oversized cruft. I know you from around and respect you and your contribs, so sorry about that. Ceoil 09:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, otherwise I would not have added the improvement notice. I have already raised the point on your talk page. If you wish to discuss further, perhaps the article talk page is the place. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We just edit conflicted on each other's talks. I'm fine either way, include the tag or not. I've said my piece, except that I dont think its wiki's place to provide isbns. I dont even know myself what use they might be. But I really hate useless maintenance tags. Ceoil 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the edit comment, a list of works with no verifiable references (such as ISBNs or OCLCs) might include incorrect titles, works that were not single authored, works that are not books, self published non-notable chaff etc. Asking for verifiable references is perfectly reasonable and as bibliography lists on BLPs often verge on listcruft, this template is intended to attract potential contributors to target them for improvement. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We'll agree to disagree on this on, but stop being so formal and boorish. Im tired to say this, but do you really think your tempalte will inspire somebody to take on the task. Even though it would take only about 5 minutes on google to comlete, nobody cares enough, look at the activity on the page for the last few years. That things are not completed is implied, maintenace tags are ugly, and just advertise our weakeness and achieve nothing. But good luck to you with that route. Or you could just fix it. Whatever. Ceoil 10:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
And dont patronise me when giving orders by saying thanks. You think Im a prick, I think your a prick. Leave thanks out of it. Ceoil 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to stick to WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Thanks for making your position clear on the question of basic politeness but I see no reason why that would stop me continuing to be civil. As for giving orders, no, I have engaged in simple discussion rather than getting into the edit-war that your actions were encouraging. Discussion is not giving orders and I have no authority to order you to do anything you do not want to. By the way I have not called you anything and have never called any Wikipedia contributor a "prick" as that would be inflammatory and blatantly uncivil. Fæ (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done Are you both happy now? - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for whizzing through the list Sitush and taking the article up a notch; I'm happy Fæ (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Good. If you are English then may the Morris Men of England be with you today. If you aren't, then don't worry about it <g> - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

California Shuttle Bus

I need help finding more references for this article and also, what do you think of Valley of the Moon Commuter Club?Thisbites (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. CSB link to a pdf of newspaper search results here.
  2. VOTMCC link to pdf results here (with a number of mis-matches to references to the Park). The relevant guideline is WP:ORG but someone might try to argue that WP:CLUB applies and I think the article is marginal on the basis that one of the sources states "The club..., is one of three in the Bay Area subsidized by the Golden Gate Bridge district. In the 1970s, when oil prices first started to climb, there were 40." which is probably worth adding somewhere.

Alumni Notice: Sheffield Hallam

As you will be aware, there is a user adding names without any citation or article (presumably a fan) which I removed (but soon will back away from if they persist). I personally take the view that bluelinked are notable, but do check sometimes to see if the link is correct and includes a reference to the college. I understand you take a different view. Might it not be helpful if you converted such lists into a table as in your essay example so that references could be added? Regards Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that the larger examples of alumni lists have tabulated using various templates but I'm not convinced that formatting this way is a good idea for embedded lists, the key issue being that less experienced editors would probably be put off from contributing.
You still seem to be missing the point that it is not just notability that is the issue here but verifiability. For that reason I believe the list as it stands fails basic policy and should be marked for improvement.
As an example have a look at the alumni list here where it is claimed that David Cameron and Idi Amin are alumni of a high school in Liverpool. Under your logic, because these are blue links there is no reason to flag the list as failing WP:V. Fæ (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Harry Hay

Hi, I've re-written and expanded the lead for Harry Hay and posted a draft to the talk page. I'd appreciate your input but if you would prefer to remain as neutral as possible as an administrator I understand. 76.204.102.102 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with it. I have had thoughts either way so have steered clear of a strong opinion, unfortunately terms such as "teacher" and "writings" are often used to wrap lobbyist or evangelical activities and ring warning bells for me (I'm not saying that necessarily applies in this case). Did you not want to follow through with a Third opinion request? I'm not taking any action on protection until at least the end of the day, if the talk page looks active on collaborating with re-wording then it will not be needed anyway. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I tried, and my efforts were met with more bad faith accusations of vandalism and more disruptive editing. I don't believe that anything will be gained by further attempts to engage with this editor and that he will continue to attack and disrupt. I leave it to your judgment as to whether semi-protection is warranted. 76.204.95.105 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete this page for me...

Ned Miller. You can put it as deletion to make way for move. mauchoeagle (c) 21:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, the alternative is to blank the page and put {{db-g7}} on it (if only you have been editing it). Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and can you also delete this for me as well. Its a redirect. mauchoeagle (c) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Page about MEDINA

Hello Fæ,

thank you for your advices and comments about the page about MEDINA. As requested I added some more appropriate citations from reliable sources (see reference 2,14,15).

Regards Hobramski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobramski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Francis

Hello, Fæ. If you have a moment, I wonder if you would mind looking at the article on Sir F Francis of the British Museum, which I have been overhauling. I rather think I may have overdone the ODNB-ish purging of capital letters, and I should be grateful for your expert eye, and such capitalisation as you think appropriate. And, of course, any other changes or comments you may have. Quite understand if you haven't got the time, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

BM always of interest. I have backlog of WMUK actions so it might take a while, probably next week. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No rush whatever. Tim riley (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wright Challenge

Greetings, Fæ. Don't know if you can help. Let me copy my message to Rock drum and his reply:

I thought I'd mention to you that I'm away for the next ten days -- and that some of those challengers are already claiming their promised "official barnstars". They have moved fast! I know you've designed other stuff for the collaboration and I wonder if you'd care to do this? I'll tell Victuallers that I'm asking you (but I guess he may have contacted you already?) It needs a design that could be pasted on to a userpage on any Wikipedia, so not depending on templates. Any help gratefully received. Andrew Dalby 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't really make any images, I'm afraid but I can create the templates to go round them... Fæ might be able to make you some special "Wright Challenge" barnstars. Do you want to leave him a message on his talk page asking about that? Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a chance? Since I will be away, if you're willing to do this I'd be glad if you would tell Victuallers you're doing it. Thanks in advance for any help -- Andrew Dalby 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I can take a look later today (after voting, running some chores and taking care of a couple of urgent emails) is there a place where claims have been already been checked? Though presumably if I knock up a template it would be easy for anyone to substitute it on talk pages. Fæ (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Brill, don't distribute. I'm thinking it might be more obvious if we put the first few barnstars on the Language Project Talk Pages? Victuallers (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done Initial version at User:Fæ/Userboxes/GLAMDER barnstar with basic instruction for use; feel free to tweak the text or swap to a better icon. Cheers Fæ (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Editathon at BL

I saw your post on Wikipedia:Geonotice about the BL English/Drama editathon collaboration. I've posted about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature and will also post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre shortly. On the talk page on the WMUK wiki, I've started a list of potential places to notify and will work on that list and add to it. I've also edited it to make it more inclusive of sister projects (editors involved in Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity or Wikiquote may want to participate also). —Tom Morris (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, all excellent ideas, I'll send an email out to WMUK members as a heads up too. I'm hoping the maximum 30 places will go rapidly and encourage the BL to think of holding more events more often. --Fæ (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll sign up on the proviso that they keep me well away from the writings of Angela Carter. A-level English rather put me off her! I might also put an editnotice on the WMUK page as I've had a comment on my talk page with someone unsure of how to link back to enwp. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I confess I'm looking forward to seeing some of the early SciFi related writers. JG Ballard's marked up scripts and original HG Wells manuscripts, crikey. Fæ (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wooo you're speedyfast!

Lol we were both trying to repair the Kenny Hulshoff vandalism at the same time. You type much faster than me! Thanks, and have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Didn't see it was you when I declined the speedy at Haycocks. Totally non-notable establishment, by the article, but A7 isn't for schools as I read it. Could be totally wrong - High Schools are per se notable (unless cases of pure vandalism) but primaries aren't. (Where Middle Schools like they have in Yorkshire come, I've never found out.) Over to you... 8-( Peridon (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you did the right thing. WP:NHS does not apply to primary schools but A7 should not be used on schools. This is a slight oddity of consensus as primary schools can invariably be deleted as non-notable but we currently have to use PROD or AFD to do it. The most common outcome is to leave a redirect to an article about the school district (if it exists). To my mind, a speedy would be kinder for the creator as when a PROD or AFD is raised they often spend much more time trying to improve or debate the article when it is obviously not ever going to be encyclopaedic (though I have no problem with userfication if they want to try). My fingers are burnt on this one, so I'll try and programme this point into my subconscious. Fæ (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ImDb

Could you please explain why the Internet movie database is not a reliable source for financial reports? The values are first checked by a moderator and verified before posting them on the page, so I guess it qualifies as a reliable source.Suriya.karthi2011 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A database manager checking a user submitted figure for box office income is neither editorial control or a transparent verification process. The IMDB page for Enthiran gives no indication of the primary source for the information and as per the 100+ comments on the article talk page history and archive, there are no published independently verifiable figures for box office income worldwide, only vague unverifiable estimates from those who are promoting the film. Fæ (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Noah Gallner

Hi, saw you tagged this for citation, I was going to tag it with a speed deletion template, a quick google search doesn't bring up any info. What ya think? GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably an A7. I'm more cautious for non-blatant articles within the first 10 minutes but it's older than that now (just). Fæ (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Done now, I also see the editor removed your unref'ed biography tag GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for giving the stub a chance. --Hookorbynook (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect someone will mark it for deletion soon unless a couple of reliable sources are included as footnotes. My 10 second search showed what looked like mentions in books, so finding a few should not be too tricky. See WP:REF for guidance on citations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of sources on lidos

Hi there, I've not logged in for about 6 weeks, but when I did I read this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sources_on_lidos and a comment on my Talk page. Can they really delete a page so quickly? I didn't keep a copy - did you? I don't have strong views about its disappearance, however.--Lidos (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin who first suggested its deletion has restored it and moved it to my userspace User:Lidos/List of sources on lidos. Guess it can stay there.--Lidos (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, lists are problematic as the selection criteria needs to be clear. A general lidos bibliography would probably be okay if embedded in the main lido article but one would then have to demonstrate that the sources are all being used (otherwise it starts to look like a research page). If you would prefer a more collaborative area for this to live, I suggest a sub-page of the swimming project would be ideal, it might be worth mentioning on the project talk page as a potential project asset. Let me know if you come across any other sysop related problems as they can normally be resolved in a friendly way. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sadly the the swimming project is entirely about swimmers, not swimming venues. Thanks for your help.--Lidos (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

London meetup 46

A heads up that we've got a couple of requests to change this back to the 12th.©Geni 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. At the moment either date is free for me. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fæ

Dear Fæ, Thanks so much for your guidance. Yes, I knew I was guilty of not filling in the summaries. Every time I clicked "save" I would just remember when it was too late. As a newby I value your guidance! Have a great day! Magnusmagnussen (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fæ

Was trying to move an article from the title "recuperation_(sociology)" to "recuperation_(politics)", after cleaning it up (deleting a lot of irrelevant ranting about punk rock and America), then realized that I probably don't have the right to move a page (couldn't see it if it is there). Apollylogies for any fuss, but you are the only administrator I've had any contact with. Sorry if it takes time, I just forgot I didn't necessarily have the right to move the page, but calling the concept sociological is 100% wrong. Probably more philosophical than political, still, political is more accurate than sociological. Explain in more detail on request.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, deleted duplicate and moved original to the same title. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Derby matters

Hullo, Fae. Victuallers asked me to be sure to show you the announcement at Wikipedia:GLAM/Derby/Multilingual Challenge (see orange banner on that page) because it takes the name of your committee in vain. Is it OK? We needed the aegis of an external authority for this extra award. If you want to reword the announcement or make a link to the committee (I only have Victuallers' word that it exists!) please just go ahead. I hope it's basically all right, though. Andrew Dalby 13:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Editathon

A brief note to send warmest thanks to you and your colleagues for today's gathering. I know how much backstage effort goes into such events, and I am confident all your guests share my gratitude and pleasure. Loud applause to all concerned at the British Library. Tim riley (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel privileged to be able to support the British Library to lead the field when it comes to e-volunteer outreach. It's a rare opportunity. --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the applause. I also started a signpost article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-06/News_and_notes, if anyone wants to take a stab at cleaning up/clarying stuff that would be great, Sadads (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

British Library Editathon, thanks

Hi, Fae Thanks so much to you and your colleagues for a fascinating day. I really enjoyed it, and hope that you did too, even if most of it was spent helping out dimwits like me. Much appreciated, and much enjoyed! Best, Judith Victorianistjaf (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Friends of organization

Could you help me prevent deletion?Thisbites (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks okay at the moment. Anyone can remove a PROD if they disagree with it, the next step would be AFD. In this case the page is a useful disambiguation and the concept has sufficient evidence of notability. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for the thing on an arch. page.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

... for continuing to use your user subpage for variations on the Derby barnstar. It was the handiest place. But, of course, move it away if you like! Andrew Dalby 12:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it's a Derby Barnstar so I would not want a specialized variation of my own. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Taro Aizu

Fæ, you raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taro Aizu in February 2011, and the result was 'delete'. From what I can see, the article Taro Aizu was recreated within 4 hours of deletion. All of the arguments for deletion of the original article appear to apply to the new one. I'm unsure how to deal with the situation, as doing another Afd in the normal way will modify the Afd page, which states "No further edits should be made to this page". Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks, gråb whåt you cån (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Twinkle does cater for this situation and a second AFD needs to be created. I have set one up for the discussion after reconsidering the prize mentioned (which was already referenced in the deleted version). The last AFD had so few comments that the consensus must be considered weak anyway so a second discussion is reasonable. --Fæ (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get to it presently. Oddly, the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taro Aizu (2nd nomination) in the banner on the article shows as a redlink (can't see why). --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That's normal, you could try purging the page. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifixer

See The Independent article on the "wikifixer" (the articles happen to relate to clients of Mark Bolland and Associates), interested readers may want to add the following articles to their watch-list to help ensure neutral articles are maintained:

--Fæ (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

British Library follow-up

Thank you for participating in the English and Drama Editathon at the British Library on June 4. I hope you enjoyed the day and got something useful out of it.

If you are new to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, I hope you had any questions or problems answered and maybe found being a contributor as addictive as many of the regulars do. If you've got any questions or need help, please feel free to ask any of us on our talk page or by e-mail (Fæ, Tom Morris, Sadads, James F., RHaworth, The Land, AdamBMorgan), ask on the British Library collaboration page or through the Wikipedia Help Desk.

If you are interested in working on Wikipedia, you might want to consider joining one of the WikiProjects. These are places where team work between editors interested in a particular topic can be coordinated. Some suggestions for WikiProjects that may be of interest to you as a participant in the event on Saturday include Literature, Poetry or Science Fiction. A full list of literature and language related WikiProjects can be found here, and a list of all WikiProjects is here. The WikiProjects often have things that need doing, and if you need help you can often ask in their talk page.

But there are other places you can get involved. If you are interested on working on images, such as improving image descriptions, categorisation or uploading new media, consider getting involved in Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource also needs people willing to help make available original source material, and Wikiquote is trying to compile a directory of quotes which you may be able to contribute to.

If you want to continue some of the work we got started on Saturday, here are a few potential things to help with:

  • Following on from work on Ella D'Arcy on Saturday, work has started to make all of The Yellow Book available on Wikisource. If you go to the page on Wikisource and pick a volume then click on 'scan index' you can start helping to proofread pages from the journal - simply click on the page you want to work on, and go through to check that the text on the left reflects the text on the right. If you need any help with getting started, please ask User:Tom Morris.
  • If you created any new articles at the event, you might want to submit them to Did you know?.
  • If you are able to translate into other languages, why not pick one of the articles we worked on, translate it and post it on another language version of Wikipedia: there are now versions in hundreds of languages. On Wikimedia Commons, it is also possible to provide multilingual descriptions of images and categories: this enables editors on the other language versions to better find images and media files they can use in their project.
  • If you need images from the British Library to illustrate articles, please add them to the image requests page. If you would like a British LIbrary curator to help collaborate on an article, please add it to the collaborations page.
  • You might also be interested in attending GLAMcamp London.
  • To explore more articles related to the British Library, visit Portal:British Library.

Whatever you do, please tell us about the positive and negative experiences you have. On behalf of the organisers of the event, thanks again.

(This is the message I've delivered to attendees.)

—Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FOO

That wasn't my intent at all, and I made sure the links to Afd already worked it was also the 2nd moving during but it wasn't a substantial name change so it doesn't midlead anyone, I simply thought it would improve the article. As ("fo" o) seems a bit descriptive and (fo-o) just seems a bit more grammatically correct.Thisbites (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note what do you think of Wilma Pang and do you need help with anything?Thisbites (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pang article looks like a notability failure to me, but I have not checked out all the sources to see the future potential to meet the general notability guidelines (rather than just POLITICIAN). I've backed off my to-do list for the time being due to my WM-UK commitments off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there friend

I recently posted this on the reference desk. "A few months ago I read a news article that a biotech company in South San Francisco or San Bruno is in the middle of human trials for a therapy where people with HIV are infused with t-cells that are adapted to not allow hiv to enter them similar to the ones that people with natural immunity have and that it was promising research because these t cells were replicating themselves in most people in the trial on their own. I want to find this article as some people I told don't believe me or want to know more and I want to look into the company, I also want to expand the article on the HIV timeline and Hiv treatment articles."

I ask because I was recently diagnosed with HIV, my ex boyfriends new boyfriend called me to tell me he heard my ex bragging about having gotten it and purposefully passing it on to me before breaking up with me. In any case I remember they were still looking for guinea pigs and I am interested in applying, at the time I thought since it was such a breakthrough I would be able to find the information easily but I have not so I am asking here. If that doesn't work I will just contact everyone with a business license in those cities and see if that works. I know you are a great researcher and perhaps you would be good enough to find it for me, I would be eternally grateful hon.Thisbites (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll add it to my backlog to think about, having a heath emergency myself this week which gives me little headspace. In the UK we have had some success in workshopping with Cancer Research UK to improve articles about related health and medication, my initial reaction would be to consider upping the game on the HIV related articles to see if improved collaboration with related institutions might help keep the level of recent research reasonably well documented including a list of current notable trials. It might be a useful exercise to keep gathering information on advice, treatment and research for your own files and consider how these might be used as sources to support a better presentation of the information later on. --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, I think that would be great and I have noticed in the past there is not a lot of information on HIV here. I HIV by country articles that cover travel and employment and health treatment and statistics by country should be created just like there are "LGBT rights in x" and "Human rights in x" articles. I feel there is a lack of information of the various strains of HIV. I have the "wild" or "wilde" strain, i think the former because my doctor said it means all medicines will work on me but maybe there was a doctor wilde, i don't know yet. Research studies should absolultely be covered or even HIV research at Stanford/at Oxford/at Johns Hopkins/at SF General would be helpful too or in California in Russia in China etc. I hope you feel better soon.Thisbites (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DocRun Page

Why did you nominate the DocRun page for deletion? This article is about the newest company started by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Reuting a well known author who founded MyLLC.com, and InCorp.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InCorp_Services,_Inc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berklyboy2 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I referenced the book she authored, and her bio on Google Knol, and the other companies she has founded. How is that a page for her company is allowed to be on Wikipedia, but not her newest company. What needs to be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berklyboy2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reuting may be notable and other companies she has set up may meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies) but notability of her new venture must be established for that company, it is not automatically conferred just because she is involved, otherwise it may as well be a one line mention in the article about her. More help has been left on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Knol as a source? Really?! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

List of New Thought writers

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:List of New Thought writers. It seems you added the list criteria a bit more than a year ago, but it's been ignored and now a certain editor has been adding redlinked names to the list without any supporting documentation. There are a number of names on the list that are dubious and not supported by the linked articles. Any input that might reinforce the need to clean up and cite this list would be appreciated. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-added to my watch-list, looks like you have it under control for the moment but will look again if it starts getting contentious. --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Yworo (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a speedy delete to move a page

Hi Fæ,

Looks like I need a page deleted to move an article, probably because it has some few edits related to redirecting. It's Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Take a look at my survey and see that the most used name in books is Haj Amin al-Husseini. In fact the current name is at the bottom of the bunch. Delete it quickly please so I can move it? Saw you are active at the moment. Thanks.

Sample search urls:

Name Variation Years 2000-2011 in Google Books>Books All years in Google Books>Books
"Haj Amin el-Husseini" 449 3000
"Haj Amin al-Husseini" 1770 3600
"Hajj Amin el-Husseini" 32 95
"Hajj Amin al-Husseini" 816 1610
"Haj Amin el-Husayni" 0 2
"Haj Amin al-Husayni" 83 483
"Hajj Amin el-Husayni" 1 2
"Hajj Amin al-Husayni" 1050 2870
"Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni" 307 1230
"Mohammad Amin al-Husayni" 26 28
"Mohammed Amin el-Husseini" 18 67
"Mohammed Amin al-Husseini" 40 61
"Muhammad Amin al-Husseini" 35 74
"Muhammad Amin al-Husayni" 41 236

- Ficusindica (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see it's been sorted out now. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. You chose a lovely name btw :) --Ficusindica (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Friends of" organization

Attempted a rewrite ... perhaps you'd take a look? Trilliumz (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great rewrite for a tricky subject, the article has definitely jump up a class in quality. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, it has made the article worse in the opinion of the community. Trilliumz (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Encouragement much appreciated! Major trim completed, time for a Wikibreak! Trilliumz (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Art Fund Prize

Hi Fæ, I want to move Gulbenkian Prize to Art Fund Prize as that is what the prize is now known as, but Art Fund Prize is a redirect to The Art Fund, so I cannot move it. Could you delete Art Fund Prize to make way for the move? BabelStone (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, left the move for you to sort out just in case I misunderstood the request. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved it now. BabelStone (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian languages Wikipedian event in London

Saw your note in the india notice board. I am willing to help out with Tamil regarding this. I can help creating articles in Tamil wikipedia. Also you might get more replies if you post a note in the Wikimedia-India list--Sodabottle (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm going to set up a registration page for Wikimedians supporting the lounge (or e-volunteering remotely on the day) with the details I have agreed so far and I'll link it here so you can sign up. Tamil would be an excellent achievement. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Initial registration page set up at wmuk:V&A Wikilounge. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Enthiran & Dasavatharam

Enthiran page is being owned by hard-core Rajinikanth fans User:Vensatry, User:Bollyjeff and User:Eelamstylez77. They have a conflict of interest in keeping this article neutral. They claim Enthiran is the highest grosser in India (not Sholay and 3 Idiots).

The neutral version is this. Taran Adarash even gives break up. Protect wikipedia from such vandalising criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kollyfan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Milner Schools for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. JRPG (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

CSDs

Pages can be tagged for speedy deletion more than once, even if removed previously. Only prods cannot be placed back on pages. Noformation Talk 10:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take time to read the short section about speedy removals under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Once a speedy has been removed by a non-creator, the next step is discussion, not re-application of the exact same speedy tag. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming I haven't read it. How about we let an admin decide if it's worthy of a speedy deletion? This user clearly wants to push a POV, evidenced by the fact that they attempted to add spam. Then we have the fact that an obscure article immidiately has a supporter willing to revert a CSD while the article creator is not around. Both accounts are brand new and both are editing only this article. What do you think? Noformation Talk 10:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you are trying to use the wrong speedy tags to deal with the situation. As an admin I'm perfectly aware of when to block the spamming account and the difficulties in dealing with possible hoax articles. In this case the page was created to promote something but as the topic does exist in sources and internet chatter (though may be a neologism) this is not an easy speedy case in my opinion. I doubt the article can meet WP:V but that would be a matter for a longer PROD or AFD. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, if you're an admin I think you know well enough that those two users are connected. If that's the case, then when the initial speedy was removed it was a self-removal, which means that it should not have happened. Aside from that, even if this is a legitimate topic, if it was created by a spamming account then it's either going to be a non-article or a spam article. If someone wants to legitimately build it in the future, that's great, but do you really think that's going to happen now considering the circumstances? Noformation Talk 10:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that WP:QUACK applies, you are free to raise a SPI. In the meantime please avoid ad-hom arguments to support a speedy deletion argument, your speculation about the nationality or naming of contributors on the article talk page is not appropriate. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Saying that two names sound alike is in no way ad hominem, read the article. Pointing out that two user names that were created recently and edited only one article and sounded like they were of a certain language is not a personal attack to avoid rational discourse. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Noformation Talk 11:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding. You are accusing other editors of being sockpuppets and using this in a rationale for speedy deletion. Unless you are prepared correctly to file a SPI I suggest you lay off making such accusations. Fæ (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You said that speculation about the nationality or naming of contributors is ad hominem. Ad hominem means that one attacks a person rather than an argument. What I did was draw attention to the fact that two users who are newly created and editing the same article also happen to have similar sounding names, possibly of a Russian or Slavic persuasion. This is not ad hominem, it's not even close. I am not attacking anyone for being of a nationality or race or religion or creed or anything else. I am simply drawing attention to a parallel. Do you understand? Noformation Talk 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Surprise surprise, they were sock puppets! Who would have seen that coming? Oh wait, I did. Will you strike your accusations of ad hominem now please? Noformation Talk 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atheistic mythology

The article Atheistic mythology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The topic appears only weakly in Google Books and seems unlikely to be able to address WP:V or WP:GNG in the near future.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fæ (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Cornish sentiment

The previous Cornuphobia article is now renamed Anti-Cornish sentiment to address concerns about possible neologism Govynn (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Andreas Illiger

Hello Fæ. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Andreas Illiger, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the claim of notability was added after my A7 was raised. Fæ (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Please delete this pages:User:Ankit Maity/scripts and User:Ankit Maity/indextemplate.

Done, though you can simply add {{db-u1}} to any of your own userpages to get them deleted. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Vensatry

User:Vensatry is revert warring again in Enthiran and Magadheera.

User:David Fraudly reverted NPOV version of User:Bollyjeff. As it was against concensus, I undid, copy-edited and added new source[4]. But User:Vensatry reverted without concensus back to POV version of User:David Fraudly.

Same case in Magadheera. I add new source. User Vensatry comes and reverts without concensus. I think he is stalking me. I don't want get blocked again. So please deal with him as I have promised the authorities not to get involved. He is typing fake edit summaries to deliberately implicate me as if I am going against consensus. Also, he is openly coercing and threatening to get me blocked. It is illegal, unfair and unlawful to wikipedia regulations.Kollyfan (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, amongst other things I am aware of the conversations away from the article talk page between users, however there has been a lot of edit-warring on the Enthiran article and so there are plenty of people keeping an eye on the situation. As apparently new user David Fraudly has had a bit of a sarcastic and personal go at me, I would not take direct action as an admin but will be prepared to raise an report on an appropriate noticeboard for an independent view if the situation remains unstable. As for Vensatry, I'll drop them a note; perhaps you could also drop them a note saying how you feel on their talk page, they are quite experienced in relevant WikiProjects and may be able to help with gaining a formal consensus on these sourcing issues by raising an RFC or similar. In the meantime, take a deep breath and assume as much good faith in the actions of others as possible, coming back to something a day later often helps. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Now this is really amazing! When did I involve in Edit Warring. User:Kollyfan added a false claim stating that Maghadheera's budget to be ₹ 55 crore using "ibosnetwork". Is it a relaible one? No user would say that's reliable. The existing source clearly states the budget to be ₹ 40 crore. I've also seen an interview given by its led actor Ram Charan Tej on Jaya TV when the film was released. He himself stated the budget to be 40c, highest for a Telugu film at that time. That has to be true, since the producer is none other than his maternal uncle, Allu Aravind. User:Kollyfan is adding content which clearly conflicts with the existing source in all articles. Do check all those and advise him. See again he has stated me as "Rajinikanth fan", which was the main reason for his block last time. --Commander (Ping Me) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, not sure I want to get into sources analysis, but IBOS says "Domestic collections are reported nett or gross box office, compiled from Trade outlets and Independent theater trackers." and I suspect that just as all other sources, they are using some undeclared form of expert estimate rather than verifiable box office financial reports. Consequently it is hard to say whether one source is particularly better than another but individual reports might be compared based on whether they are a one-off personal interview or a semi-statistical summary across the film industry. As for who is calling who what, well I'd rather not go there as I would prefer discussions to shift to a calm basis to give consensus a chance. Cheers Fæ (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the discussion seems off-topic. Questions regarding this dispute was already raised on the associated projects by user:Bollyjeff. I did not see User:David fraudly's edits. I just thought I reverted User:Kollyfan's edits to Bollyjeff's version. Sorry for that. As for now I leave it to you. I got some other work to do. Thanks! --Commander (Ping Me) 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:David Fraudly

This user has suddenly started revert warring in Badrinath page. [5] What to do now? Kollyfan (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One edit is not edit-warring. I'd relax and just keep an eye open while this person digs a deep hole to fall into. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Again he reverted. I don't understand why he is upset with this source. The site gives break up.Kollyfan (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You can always ask him for an explanation. From what I see so far his behaviour is uncivil (so you can try reporting at WP:WQA) but would have to be persistent and rather more disruptive for an admin to take any action. I don't doubt that this behaviour has been noticed. --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, next time he reverts, I will go there. Thanks.Kollyfan (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Badrinath

I am unable to add link to searchandhra.com/cinema/badrinath-collections-more-than-magadheera to the article. Can you please add it? Kollyfan (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dasavathaaram

Hi, Now that Enthiran page has stabilised, can you please look into this film? Unlike Enthiran this film has only 1 or 2 sources about box office figures. It suffered from heavy negative reviews and failed in Hindi and Telugu. Personally, I believe the total collections ranged ₹130 to 140 crore in its lifetime from all languages. But so far, I have got sources putting the gross in excess of ₹200 crore. Revert wars expected. Kollyfan (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: CSD msg

Hey thanks for letting me know. I just saw the part about new articles. I must have missed that part badly, wow. I usually don't CSD that quickly, I should have tagged. I don't know what was up last night, but thanks for letting me know lol. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

David Fraudly

Collapsed comment from blocked account
Defamation of public people

Hello Fae. I want to inform you, that defamation as you did in various instances (Ajay Vidyasagar, Hansraj Saxena, both from Sun TV Networks, India) violates UK laws. Please remove all your questionable comments of the past 9 months regarding the revenue issue at Enthiran as soon as possible.--David Fraudly (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to be hastier...

[6]. Island Monkey talk the talk 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where one would move any faster. I think Fraudly is confusing their own misquotes of my comments with my actual comments which if anything were cautiously neutral, mundane and obvious. That someone employed by a company might be expected to maintain that company's interests is blatantly obvious. Anyway I'll refrain from speculating as Fraudly is free to write in to OTRS if they wish to explain what they think might be a problem. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Global IDS

For what its worth, my restoration of the A7 tags in no way meant that I agreed with the A7 tagging. I felt that the article did attempt to assert the notability, and wasn't merely blatant advertising (however disruptive and spammy the editors who created it were). I just felt that since I had started down the road of enforcing the speedy removal vandalism, I couldn't go and deny the A7 myself for fear of giving mixed messages to the creators. Syrthiss (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just erring on the side of caution. As for the the dubious SPA accounts which appear to be acting in concert to promote this company, as there is an open SPI, hopefully they will be dealt with appropriately regardless of what might happen to the article. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

i got message of deletion. Can you confirm specific reason ?

Dear Madam,

i have published a article on a Devotional Music Singer Karan Sharda.

But i got message of deletion. Can you confirm specific reason.

1. Is there any problem with singer that is not so famous and you only accept very famous people.

2. is there any wording spelling mistake.

tell me clearly the reason.

Regards Gurpreet Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.242.207 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted by an admin under the policy of WP:CSD A7, in that there was no clear statement of notability that might be supported by independent sources (see the criteria of WP:MUSIC and the problem with self published sources at WP:SELFPUB). The article stated that the person is a singer but there was no claim of wider notability such as published national newspaper reviews or notable awards won. If you wish to continue improving the article with the intention of addressing these issues in the near future, I would be prepared to put a draft version in your userspace so that you do no have to start from scratch (assuming that you are Gurpreetinet but missed logging in). Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello, You deleted my article submission yesterday due to a copyright infringement (for Joe LaPorta page). I have appropriately adjusted the information now but can't seem to be able to re-edt/re-submit the new copyright free info for the page. Please advise. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmuzik (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you create a draft in your userspace first and then an admin can review the proposed article? You have created this article three times and as the last deletion was a copyright problem the article has been locked as a precaution. I will add some advice to you talk page about draft articles. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks Fae! I've placed a draft in my user talk but haven't heard back from anyone yet. Please let me know your thoughts if you have a second to glance it over. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmuzik (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Amplifetes homepage

Hello Fae!

Hope this finds you in good spirits!

I have spent a good part of yesterday shaping up this page after receiving your notability warnings. I believe that the page now clearly establishes the band in questions credibilty; I have added links to all the vital infos which make it obvious to anyone who follows them that the band is not pulling anyones leg here:)

I can assure you that there is nothing in the text that does not have backup, however it is very hard to find links to certain kind of "evidence", for example that a song has had airplay(information like that changes every week, as you probably know). I am really doing my best here, so if you still believe the page needs further notability updating - do not hesitate to let me know exactly what it is you think is the issue, ok?

Much appreciate your assistance!

Best regards, Peter Ågren/The Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources such as YouTube are a bit of a red flag as they are essentially self-published. To increase the credibility of the article claims, it would be better to find press reviews (including non-English local press) or magazine articles that mention the group, though with more than just gig notices. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Ok, thank you for the answer Fae!

I have now changed all references but one into non-youtube ones. The press/media links already met your criteria, so with all due respect I'm not quite sure what you meant there... However, I have added more of the sort you mentioned so hopefully all is good now?

If not, please point me to where change is needed!

Best regards, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.106.77 (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Humphries

This information is credible and verifiable. Please let me know how to include the following:

Taylor is the godson of song-writer and producer Billy Davis, who wrote I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, cousin of NBA Power-Forward Kris Humphries and his brothers Auguste and Alex are godsons of Desmond Tutu.

(and this link as a reference which is a working link:) httpwwwfanbasecom/Taylor-Humphries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Voight (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial fan websites fail WP:FANSITE, if the information is verifiable please cite a reliable source. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Las Conchas Fire

Hi Fae, I tagged it A3 not as a rephrasing of the title but under chat-like comments since the page is nothing but a request for content from the public. Noformation Talk 06:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that possibility, thanks for your reply. I have rephrased and added a citation, so it's not really speedable in its current state, though an AFD on the basis of NOTNEWS would be reasonable if a very poorly worded AFD were not already raised. Fæ (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreate the Comm100 page

You deleted the Comm100 Page with the reason: article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I think you aren't familar with this category. Comm100's Alexa Traffic Rank now is 3753 (Global). And Daily Reach (Estimated percentage of global internet users who visit a domain) is much higher than that of any businesses in the same categoy, like Live Person and LIVECHAT Software. You can check it at: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/comm100.com#trafficstats

If visitors' choice cannot indicate the importance of the subject, what else can?

Please re-create the Comm100 page to make Wikipedia more perfect.

Powershelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powershelled (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to userfy a version to your user space. I suggest you add independent reliable sources that demonstrate significant impact. Having a high rank on Alexa is not within the criteria for notability. Fæ (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done Now userfied. Fæ (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Fæ.

Powershelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powershelled (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Guru Singh

Guru Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I noticed that you deleted this article a few minutes after I rejected the speedy. As the article had no PROD or AFD, the deletion appears a bit arbitrary. Would you reconsider? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think this came up in a filter in Huggle, which would explain why I missed that you'd already declined it. I've restored the article. --causa sui (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mundeshwari Temple

There are lots of images on this page that are uploaded on commons through an email release, but not sent to OTRS. Can the email be forwarded to OTRS to make it ok or is it required for a direct email to OTRS and/or release on Picassa? You can see the discussion and directly respond at User_talk:Thisthat2011#Mundeshwari_Temple. It came up as part of a CCI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This would be a non-issue if the uploader would change "all rights reserved" on Picasa to a free license. Considering the copyright declared on the source, it would be best if the original email were forwarded to OTRS so that the images can have a ticket. Though an OTRS agent might approve the images on the assumption of good faith here, in theory they ought to check the email was sent from the right source, consequently the email headers are useful evidence that that has happened. Unless these are up for deletion, I suggest asking the uploader if they want to change the license on Picasa first, that way the images can be approved by a trusted user just by checking the source rather than going via OTRS which may take a while. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
I award Fae The Real Life Barnstar for the excellent organisation of Wiki-events, such as the recent Editathon events at the British Library. Well done! Marek.69 talk 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Marek. I'm glad you avoided the temptation of kittening me or offering me a sugary confection that might cause me to lapse into a coma. Fæ (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Online volunteer co-ordination

Hi Fæ, following on from conversations at GLAMcamp, I've created a page at Wikipedia:GLAM/Online volunteers to try and co-ordinate tasks for online GLAM volunteers. Basically think of it as a newspaper small ads for Wikipedians and others. I've put up the V&A event needing Indian speakers - you might want to rewrite it slightly. Also, any other task big or small, if we could put it there, and try and encourage people to add it to their watchlist. I'm also going to put up on there the suggestion that people add {{User GLAM interested}} to their user pages so GLAM projects can more easily find volunteers. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Though "GLAM interested" does sound a little like "Bi-curious"... --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting involved with GLAM projects is like being bi-curious, I guess, but with a lot less sex and a lot more faffing around on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
But GLAM is full of sex, walking around the British Museum you are always bumping into erotic imagery. Take a good look at the Greek pottery next time you are there, terribly saucy, though strangely you'll probably be the only one taking time to look in the cabinets. I agree about Commons though, far too much faffery (though a lot of it involves sex too, albeit much less artistic stuff). Fæ (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking

Hi Fae, it would be awesome if the V&A staff could consider Tipu's Tiger organ to be removed from its glass and played. It could be recorded & a video/music (ogg vorbis) file be placed on Commons. Otherwise, nineteenth century visitors in the East India Company Museum would have had a richer GLAM experience of the object than today! Just a wish - dont know if its feasible. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find some videos of it being played at http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/t/tipus-tiger or http://www.vam.ac.uk/channel/things/craft/playing_tippoos_tiger/ (it's noisy!). I reviewed these with our V&A contact and we talked about releasing at least one to Commons, this will be a topic to be picked up again for the event on the 16th July wmuk:VandA_Wikilounge. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be so awesome! AshLin (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films of 2011

How is this a vio?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. B; per Talk:Bollywood films of 2011 → precisely the same issue raised at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films#Copyright_concerns → resulting in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Thakur Dal Singh

Dear Fae: Thanks again for your encouragemnt to a beginner. I appreciated it. If you see the sand box, I have divided the write up in sections as desired by you. I would like to revise Reference 3 to make it more specific and state, " Letter dated 1 May 2011 from Mohan Singh, Renowned Painter from Bikaner, Rajasthan , India." But I could not figure out how to revise the references, there in no edit for references. Please guide me. With all these changes, is the write up acceptable now? Thanks. Pkandhal (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)pkandhal

Hi, my reply is on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
I award Fae The Real Life Barnstar for the excellent organisation of Wiki-events, such as the recent Editathon events at the British Library. Well done! Marek.69 talk 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Marek. I'm glad you avoided the temptation of kittening me or offering me a sugary confection that might cause me to lapse into a coma. Fæ (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Online volunteer co-ordination

Hi Fæ, following on from conversations at GLAMcamp, I've created a page at Wikipedia:GLAM/Online volunteers to try and co-ordinate tasks for online GLAM volunteers. Basically think of it as a newspaper small ads for Wikipedians and others. I've put up the V&A event needing Indian speakers - you might want to rewrite it slightly. Also, any other task big or small, if we could put it there, and try and encourage people to add it to their watchlist. I'm also going to put up on there the suggestion that people add {{User GLAM interested}} to their user pages so GLAM projects can more easily find volunteers. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Though "GLAM interested" does sound a little like "Bi-curious"... --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting involved with GLAM projects is like being bi-curious, I guess, but with a lot less sex and a lot more faffing around on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
But GLAM is full of sex, walking around the British Museum you are always bumping into erotic imagery. Take a good look at the Greek pottery next time you are there, terribly saucy, though strangely you'll probably be the only one taking time to look in the cabinets. I agree about Commons though, far too much faffery (though a lot of it involves sex too, albeit much less artistic stuff). Fæ (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking

Hi Fae, it would be awesome if the V&A staff could consider Tipu's Tiger organ to be removed from its glass and played. It could be recorded & a video/music (ogg vorbis) file be placed on Commons. Otherwise, nineteenth century visitors in the East India Company Museum would have had a richer GLAM experience of the object than today! Just a wish - dont know if its feasible. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find some videos of it being played at http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/t/tipus-tiger or http://www.vam.ac.uk/channel/things/craft/playing_tippoos_tiger/ (it's noisy!). I reviewed these with our V&A contact and we talked about releasing at least one to Commons, this will be a topic to be picked up again for the event on the 16th July wmuk:VandA_Wikilounge. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be so awesome! AshLin (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films of 2011

How is this a vio?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. B; per Talk:Bollywood films of 2011 → precisely the same issue raised at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films#Copyright_concerns → resulting in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Thakur Dal Singh

Dear Fae: Thanks again for your encouragemnt to a beginner. I appreciated it. If you see the sand box, I have divided the write up in sections as desired by you. I would like to revise Reference 3 to make it more specific and state, " Letter dated 1 May 2011 from Mohan Singh, Renowned Painter from Bikaner, Rajasthan , India." But I could not figure out how to revise the references, there in no edit for references. Please guide me. With all these changes, is the write up acceptable now? Thanks. Pkandhal (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)pkandhal

Hi, my reply is on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnard castle School

I'm not sure why you've been so zealous with the BCS page. Surely a citation needed tag rather than outward deletion of the people listed was all that was needed? Farrtj (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I've cited all but three of the list now. Those three have been added by people, and although there is no reference to them going to BCS, there is circumstantial evidence (lived in the locality) and there is no evidence of them having gone to other schools.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

ok i have removed advertising material so please remove the template Db-g11 from that page(talk)

DYK for British Library Philatelic Collections

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

pie for you

File:Pie.jpeg

illogicalpie has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!


Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re Dasavatharam

The discussion sounds very interesting. Also have a look at another high-grossing Tamil film. Post your views there. Thanks!

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at 69.181.248.16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Amplifetes page

Hello Fae,

I assume you haven't seen my reply/update in the original post, since your tags are still present on the page, so I am posting it here again. I have changed all links but one to non-youtube ones. Regarding the press/media reference links, I have posted a lot of new ones. However, as the ones already posted actually already did meet the critera you posted, I am not quite sure what you mean, with all due respect. Anyways, loads of non english reviews/interviews are there now, so I hope we're ok now?

If not, could you please point me to where exactly the problem lies, i.e. which the faulty links are?

Thank you and best wishes! Peter Ågren/Tha Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.78.43.38 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have addressed the question of notability (in line with WP:BAND) but I have left the self-published sources improvement tag in place as sources such as facebook and some of the other blogs are not encouraged under Self-published sources. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello again!

Ok, thanks! So, just for me to get this straight so I can work with you here; which are the other "blogs" you refer to? There is little way for me know... Please let me know so I don´t have to start randomly deleting perfectly acceptable links. Also, the one FB-link you mention is there just to present a scan of paper mag only article(no internet version), do you know of another way of doing this without using FB or similar?

Also, is there a zero tolerance re: FB etc? You would think that if it is there as an exception to a large enough body of other, acceptable links it would not present an issue as the section as a whole would make it clear that there is no foul play intended?

But more importantly, please show me the exact links/blogs you want me to get rid of and I´ll do it asap and throw the FB link too, so we can close this:)

Thank you again for your assistance!

Best regards, Peter Ågren/The Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Karrine Steffans

Extended content

Didn't you get the memo? Any and all mention of Ms Steffans' past endeavors in porn are instantly removed from the Wikipedia article about her by the vigilant duo of Malik Shabazz and Xenophrenic. Any new text about Ms Steffans' (established & notable) dalliances with the "dark side" of showbiz is instantly undone, the action justified by vague referrals to "WP:BLP" or "WP:RS". They seem determined to protect a helpless damsel in distress. Another Wikipedia mini drama-series. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You really should exhibit a little more good faith, and refrain from commenting on the motivations of your fellow Wikipedia editors. I can't speak for Malik, but my edits to that article are strictly based on upholding the Wikipedia policies clearly outlined in WP:BLP. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Having good faith towards my fellow Wiki editors, as I hope I have, does not mean never calling them on what I perceive to be bias. We have here a person whose sole initial claim to notability is her past as a video clip model and nude dancer, a career which bestowed on her a certain "nickname". She then used (or allowed the distributors to use) that "nickname" for the title of a porn movie in which she was prominently featured. None of this is allowed to be mentioned in the Wiki article about her, though it is all amply documented and clearly relevant. Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor), that part of her past is clearly encyclopaedic information. Personally, I have ceased to bother with this aspect of the article, months ago. My initial remarks to the duo abt their "snow-whiting" of Ms Steffans' life in Wikipedia were characterized as a "personal attack" and they deleted it from the article's Talk Page! So, I'll let others take up the thankless task of going up against the brick wall of empathy that seems to protect Ms Steffans' Wiki entry.
If anyone feels up to it, look up Good and bad uses of invoking BLP guidelines for a start.-The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Your perception of bias is unfounded. I don't even have enough knowledge about the subject to have formed a bias; never read any of her books - never seen any videos (music, adult, or otherwise) - don't recall even hearing her name before I stumbled across it as a footnote in the Bill Maher article. I treat that BLP just as I do all other BLPs that I edit.
Just your recent description of the subject here illustrates why BLP admonishes us to use high quality sources. You make comments like "a career which bestowed on her a certain 'nickname'", yet Fæ just showed me an embedded video clip proving that totally false. You say she "allowed" the use of the nickname for a porn movie, yet legal actions indicate otherwise. Perhaps now you better understand why BLP policy hasn't allowed some of your edits. I find your other comments about the subject, such as "Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor)" and "...their 'snow-whiting' of Ms Steffans' life" illuminating. Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A person who stumbles upon the Wikipedia entry about Ms Steffans, as it currently stands, will only learn about her career in the hip hop milieu from a TV show's press release. And that is all. The interested reader will never learn if the reasons for her initial notability, if she ever shot a porn video, if she subsequently contested in court that porn video's release, if she accepts or not the "nickname" used by her, by her interviewers in numerous shows she has appeared in, etc. The article itself, as it currently stands, contains a link to an article by the African American Literature Book Club that calls her by precisely that "nickname"! Yet, the "nickname" is not permitted to appear anywhere else, ostensibly because it lacks "reliable sourcing".
You have expunged any and all of this from Ms Steffans' entry. The unsuspecting reader sees only the career of a writer with a past in music videos. If this is not "snow-whiting", I do not know what is. As to your personal remarks about my ability to remain neutral on a BLP issue, I'm sorry you feel I'm incapable of contributing to BLPs. I could refute this insulting remark by pointing out the many BLP articles to which I've contributed, some of them clearly more "controversial" than Ms Steffans', but I will only say this: Objecting to what one perceives to be blatant bias, for or against something, does not make one non-neutral. Neutrality in BLPs does not mean accepting significant omissions from a BLP article without protest.
What you (and Malik Shabazz) are doing, instead, seems awfully close to invoking BLP where it is clearly inapplicable and might have a chilling effect on discussion, in contravention of Wiki guidelines.-The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, partner. First, you are citing an essay, not a Wiki guideline or policy -- read the boxed text at the top of that link. Second, I never said I felt you were "incapable of contributing to BLPs" (and yes, I will indeed correct every misinterpretation of my words that you make). All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing. It's great to be passionate about the stuff we edit articles about, but sometimes, like with BLPs, not so much... Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Your "explanation" is weak, insincere and ironic ("All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing"). As to your labeling me "passionate" about the subject, this is a typical tactic in flame warring: one uses inflammatory words and sarcasm, then pre-emptively labels the other party as taking it all too seriously. (And yes, I will indeed point out every use of inflammatory tactics you make. But not always. I don't intend to lose much time over this.)
You find my comments "illuminating" without explaining what this is supposed to mean and then you write "Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP". How else am I to take this except as sarcasm and innuendo, implying that I'm incapable on working on BLPs? If I'm unable to maintain neutrality and abide by Wikirules on a low-importance rated BLP article, I must be broadly incapable of doing much on BLPs. So much for your (new) personal accusation that I am somehow trying to "misinterpret your words". Perhaps if you were to use less sarcasm and innuendo in your reponses, communication would improve. At least, you acknowledge in your Wikpage that "coming off a bit snarky at times" is one of your weaknesses. I sincerely hope you work on that.-The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.
One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.
I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I took a second look, I find the NY Daily News a suitable reliable source, so the argument that it there are only SPS seems too thin to hold water. Fæ (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the edits, and the concerns already raised on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of some very poorly sourced contentious content. From what I gather, there was some adult-content film footage shot more than a decade ago. Vivid, hoping to capitalize on Steffans' more recent publicity, dug it up and apparently incorporated it into a video. I also understand there were legal actions taken, but the details are sketchy and difficult to find in reliable sources. I don't see any indication that Steffans is in the porn industry, despite the wording of recent edits — and their placement in the "Actress" subsection, any more that Paris Hilton is. Do you have any reliable sources that give details from both sides of the issue, as well as legal outcomes, etc. And preferably sources that indicate the relevance and significance of that content, from a BLP perspective? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented on the article talk page, particularly odd is the effective suppression of the word "Superhead" in the scenario where Steffans uses its notoriety to market her own books. I suggest discussion is kept in one place and prefer further responses on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I pointed out on the talk page what WP:BLP says, and how the most recent edit violates it -- and while you and Malik have posted several times on the talk page since then, what I pointed out hasn't been refuted or properly addressed. I'll keep an eye on that talk page, as you suggest, in the hopes you'll get around to it. Also, if it isn't too much trouble, could you please provide evidence that Steffans uses the alleged notoriety of the word 'superhead' to market her books? Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Patulia high school

Restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Flimi Tadka

A lot of images on Commons have been uploaded from this site. They have a CC-BY-SA license, but my concern is that they may not be the copyright holders of the images. E.g. Their gallery contains a lot of movie stills and "celeb photos" and the like {e.g. [7], [8] etc). Was there ever an OTRS ticket on this one like we have on Bollywood Hungama? And if not, what's the best way to handle this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll investigate shortly... --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
List of images. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done Actually, these portraits look okay. The website contains images which are not available on a free license but these are not the ones being uploaded. The page at http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html makes it unambiguous that the CC-BY-SA only applies to photos from their parties and specifically points out that posters and other promotional material are not available on a free license. Any such image on Commons should be deleted but those being uploaded by Fanofbollywood look okay as they appear to be restricted to the portrait photos from FilmiTadka parties. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't know why I missed that part of the license when I was reading, may be time to get new glasses! —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:David r from meth productions

I visited the talk page of this user and notice that a year ago you approached him about a possible conflict of interest. This is a note for your information.

Today my attention was drawn on Twitter to this diary entry by Nick Cohen in The Spectator in which he mentions that editor's apparently proprietorial approach to editing certain articles which he (Cohen) associates with Johann Hari and those with whom Hari has had altercations in the past. He accuses the editor of denigrating others and sanitizing Hari's article, and speculates coyly on his identity.

I thought you should be aware of this escalation into the "real world". There is an ongoing series of accusations of plagiarism, apparently well founded, and so Hari is getting a fair bit of negative attention in the press. [9] [10]. --TS 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though the account appears to have been dormant for a few months anyway. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This is also under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cohen & Hari. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't do anything any more!

-- 91.2.181.3 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for what you might want to do rather than just vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
okay. -- 91.2.181.3 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Yehya Saade

Teh D'oh! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For you to eat for being helpful. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tha Amplifetes page again

Hi Fae!

I am sorry to be on your back about this, but it just would be great to have it resolved asap...so therefore I´m reposting this:

Hello again! Ok, thanks! So, just for me to get this straight so I can work with you here; which are the other "blogs" you refer to? There is little way for me know... Please let me know so I don´t have to start randomly deleting perfectly acceptable links. Also, the one FB-link you mention is there just to present a scan of paper mag only article(no internet version), do you know of another way of doing this without using FB or similar? Also, is there a zero tolerance re: FB etc? You would think that if it is there as an exception to a large enough body of other, acceptable links it would not present an issue as the section as a whole would make it clear that there is no foul play intended? But more importantly, please show me the exact links/blogs you want me to get rid of and I´ll do it asap and throw the FB link too, so we can close this:) Thank you again for your assistance! Best regards, Peter Ågren/The Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs)

 Done If FB is the official site then maybe. If FB is referenced from the official site then it is superfluous. I removed the SPS notice based on the improvement in sources but I'm short on time lately to do a positive review. You may want to raise a note at WP:RFF for suggestions on how to improve the choice of sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

David r

There's actually a lot more behind this. It also involves oversight I instigated of a page that concerned this editor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of sockpuppetry are not recent at all. Look at the talk page archives - back in March 2006 User:Felix-felix clearly suspected Hari was editing the page and socking as Dave R and the numerous IPs from which he edited: [11]. Nothing was ever done then, more's the pity. Why has no SPI been undertaken?. Maybe you should start with looking at User:Thelionforreal, User:Robblackhurst and User:Quinefan for a start, as socks of Dave / Dave R / David R / David r from meth productions, and the numerous IPs that Dave edited from. I find it incredible that Wikipedia isn't investigating this - if Dave has been editing for so long and so abusively for so many years, why hasn't it been looked at before now?. 86.137.138.157 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your identical comment on the David r user page. Your complaints would be taken more seriously if you were prepared to log in, plus you would gain the benefit of not having everyone known your ISP and location. See Summary of benefits. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fae. So my complaints of a potential case of socking aren't going to be taken as seriously, because I sign in as an Ip than if I had some random username?. Really?. Is that how wikipedia really works? I know it's not a democracy, but still... I don't mind if people know my Ip and ISP and location. Anyhow, it seems pretty clear those accounts were created to create a false consensus against Felix-felix on the Johann Hari talk page. Just sayin'. MuddyFunster (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Around issues of reporting other users, many would find anonymous IP complaints worrying and there are practical limits on how anon IP contributors can be involved in creating a consensus. I do subscribe to the view of the IPs are human too essay but you have to keep in mind that an IP address is not consistent and some contributors might be constantly changing their dynamic IP in-between contributions. Fæ (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BRUTE LABS wikipedia page

Hi, I have done my best to address your concerns on Brute Labs. Would you mind taking a look and giving me some more feedback? 216.239.45.4 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thank you for the courtesy of not templating regular editors. Yes, I am quite familiar with the related policies. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might resolve this recent dispute? As an aside, I have been collecting offline quite a list of quips and barbs (to use polite terms) from your comments to and about me. Before dumping them on a noticeboard, I'll extend to you the courtesy of allowing you to directly address and hopefully remedy what is fast becoming a serious problem. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text to be added to Karrine Steffans that includes a fair description of the Superhead nickname and the sexual context of it (her books sell on the basis of her describing herself as a coke whore and having a background of having sex with celebrities) and the facts regarding the porn video of the same name. Your current approach is well beyond what can be justified by BLP and instead appears to be ensuring that nothing critical is added to the article. In fact with your most recent additions you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations that her publisher would be delighted to see. If you want to report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out, quips and barbs (sounds like a description of Oscar Wilde's writing) are rather trivial compared to persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process.
Interesting that you are collecting information about me off-line, that sounds worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening. You may want to focus your efforts more constructively. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "rather than trolling other editors"
  • "you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations that her publisher would be delighted to see"
More of your personal attacks upon a fellow editor so noted.
I have been trying to do exactly that, as time allows, as I've worked my way through some reliable sources. Regarding adding content specifically about "Superhead" and a "porn video", I have not yet seen adequate coverage of those topics in the reliable sources I've read thus far, so I can't yet add content on them. You appear to have more knowledge about those topics than I (e.g., I was unaware that the nickname had any connection to "coke whore"), so it would be appreciated if you could direct me to additional useable sources.
  • "If you want to report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out..."
Want to? No one in their right mind looks forward to entering that drama-fest. I was hoping that by raising my concerns here first, the issue could be addressed, resolved and put behind us. Instead, you'd rather I 'knock myself out' at the noticeboards. Fine, we'll do it your way, and you can raise any issues you have about me stalking or threatening you at the same time. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullo. Being only familiar with you via the discussion discussed above, I have to tell you you're not exactly covering yourself in glory. Let's pretend that you're 100% corect, that your interpretation of the various sources and BLP concerns on that page are correct, and that Xeno is (to use your unfortunate phrase) trolling.

If all of the above is correct, he's winning.

He continues to come across as the calm reasonable (if slightly implacable) one, and you to be the slightly shrill and unfocused one. Appearance matter. If someone is getting to you so much that your patterns of editting are getting distorted, just step away. Again, even based upon the presumption that Xeno actually is 100% trolling, you simply can't respond to people with "rather than trolling other editors..." and not expect some blowback.

And finally, it appears to be affecting the way you're reading the situation as well. While the "quips and barbs" phrase above is not optimal communication, it's almost willful misreading on your part to interpret that as "stalker-ish and rather threatening" when he explicitly states it is the preperation of evidence prior to posting.

After-finally, I type like a pompus arse. I know I do. It's a character flaw I do struggle against, but it doesn't sound like that at all when it comes out of my mouth. Perhaps if you read this in that lisping cartoon cat's voice, it would be closer to how I intend it?

Thanks for listhening,
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you enjoyed writing this comment (and flicking peanuts around), however you seem more interested in making Xenophrenic feel better rather than giving him/her the key advice that ANI is the wrong forum to complain about their perceived civility issue, though probably good forum to create unnecessary drama and inflame any issue. The ANI notice was for an "Admin conduct review requested", at no time have I used any sysop privileges with regard to Xenophrenic so this investigation is misplaced. The advice I would have liked to have seen Xenophrenic given would be to take their complaint to WP:WQA.
As for your divining my motivation as that of "winning", I could not care less, this is hardly my objective and I assume you know better that to start guessing the motivation of editors. The issue I have with the Karrine Steffans article is whether our community is allowed to improve the article to ensure it can become neutral and balanced, Xenophrenic's ownership of the article has been a key problem that spans back over 18 months. My involvement is measured in days, in which time Xenophrenic has reverted almost all of my contributions to the article multiple times, I have been persistently harangued on the talk page and threatened with investigation on and off wiki. I do not see your advice to Xenophrenic addressing these issues, in particular how their behaviour might change to welcome new contributors to the Steffans article.
If you are interested in mediation, which seems to be the direction you are taking on Xenophrenic's talk page, then I suggest you follow the steps required for mediation to have a chance at a successful outcome. In this case I see a long term page ownership issue involving more than two parties and I just happen to be a recent interloper who is likely to move along as autobiographical authors who write about having sex with celebrities is hardly my key topic of interest.
Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty troubled by this response. It's opening phrase is impolite at best, and it's second phrase ignores that first thing I told him was that ANI might not be the best place to attempt to get his concerns addressed. I also noted there that this appeared to be an isolated issue, you may notice.
Then in your second paragraph you've diverged so far from what I wrote that I have no idea how to respond.
I have to say I'm disappointed that someone so new to adminship would be quite so cavalier in dismissing concern. Regardless that this is not an "I'm an admin and I'll block you if you disagree" situation, when any editor expresses concern you should take it seriously. "Civility" is a common reason for opposing RfA, for example, and that clearly does not require the use of tools. </lecture> You'll here no more from me on your talk page with respect to this manner.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If you feel the opening phrase was impolite, it only reflects the subsection title that you added to my talk page and I have refrained from mirroring other language that you have chosen to introduce, such as "pompus arse" or that you used on Xenophrenic's talk page such as "troll meat" (diff). Apologies if you have taken offence at what I thought seemed far more mild language than you appear to commonly use yourself. My impression is that your attempt at intervention has not improved any relationships here, you might think twice before interjecting yourself into such issues as a mediator in future. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok then. I was trying to leave the issue, but goodness you're a prickly one. If you genuinely cannot tell the difference between the use of such language in jest when directed at myself and your use of it when telling me to stick it, the problem is yours not mine. I'll certainly think twice before approaching you with any feedback, as you seem admirably immune to it. Feel free to reply all you want, I won't see it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Bye.
I am perfectly open to feedback. When attempts at feedback include calling other users "Troll meat" and using words such as "arse" in any context on a user talk page then this moves from feedback to throwing petrol on a small fire. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that on the ANI discussion, Xenophrenic appears to miss how stating "I have been collecting offline" in this thread would be interpreted as an off-wiki investigation. I know of no off-wiki public documents, hopefully they will avoid the temptation to publish their off-wiki collection. Fæ (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Schools

No, Patulia was so trivial that I forgot the daft rule that schools are exempt. Rhyn described itself as a college, so I assumed that it could be deleted as nn. I probably should have speedied for spam if anything. Well, another top class article survives...

Thanks for commenting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RS

I was told by a wikipedian that these following three sources are unreliable [12]. Is that true? Pass a Method talk 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given the above contributor guidance on my talk page - pointing them to the Medical project etc. They asked the identical question of me, even though I have had no involvement with them or any medical article. I do hope that this is not turning into forum shopping! - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback // Re: disruptive pattern of CSD notices

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 05:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDwiki (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BEM - Bordeaux Management School

Hello. This is NOT an abreviation. It is the full legal name of the school. Best Regards, Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warwickensis (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed to the name used on the website, which one presumes is the most commonly used organization name. Fæ (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BEM

Thank your for your help. Could you please help me to display the infobox? Best regards, Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psb75 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in on Ravians

I'm baffled by the outcome. We delete the page, but leave the same apparently hair-on-fire BLP vio material, plus lots more, on the institution page? If the BLP trump demands immediate expunging in this case, what about virtually every other educational institution with such an uncited section? BusterD (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alumni Lists

How should it best be worded when adding a former pupil who is best known by their pen name and fame as an author but at the school was known by their birth and legal name. Lenzie Academy and Jane Duncan RafikiSykes (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The two names would have to be linked in public documents and if this is the case and they can be referenced then I would see no problem in listing the most commonly known name followed by their other name. As Wikipedia is intended for the general public reader rather than previous members of the school, I would go for the commonly known pen name first. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes the article citing her attendance also gives her real name family member names etc nothing not in public doman and as she is dead no BLP issues.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thumbs up then, give it a go. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit puzzled about your revert to Gerda's userpage

Hi Fæ! I must admit I am wondering why you made this change to Gerda's user page. No doubt there is a good reason, but I'm not smart enough to see why. Please enlighten me! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I think it was a glitch when browsing from a tablet, probably a consequence of moving around using a touch screen rather than a mouse. Cheers Fæ (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilma Pang

Please help save Wilma Pang, I think it is just being deleted due to wiki politics ironic for an article on an actual politician. Thanks hon.

I looked at it before but thought it was the wrong side of the WP:1E guidance and I am not sure that the main event in question would justify an article. I decided against putting in an opinion either way on this one. This probably is a good example where userfication would be a smart move depending on what Pang gets up to next.
Perhaps you should consider returning to your named account (assuming I'm not mistaken about who you might be)? You make interesting contributions so it is a shame not to have these done in an open and collaborative manner. Getting unblocked might be a bit of a drag, but if you can genuinely explain you understand the policies and intend to stay within them, this is normally seen favourably. If you have been up to anything that would look dreadful (such as gaming the system) then contact me by email without telling me the details of your concerns and I would be happy to put you in touch with someone experienced and independent to advise you on how best to proceed if you want to become an open and valued contributor. Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Hi, good speedy tag. I have to ask, why not speedy it yourself? causa sui (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Invariably it makes sense to provide a friendly user warning to the creator and a case would have to be pretty blatantly abusive for me to consider outright deletion without another pair of eyes on it. I'm probably being over cautious but that seems preferable than the reverse. If you are referring to the recent PA I tagged (Johnsimers) this was more nonsense than blatant, even though the article title was problematic so blanking was ineffective. --Fæ (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tipu's Tiger

Another contribution to the DYK project, thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit glitch

Thanks Fae, beats me how that happened. AshLin (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

John Ralston

I've been trying to edit the page for John Ralston's Needle Bed and you posted that I need some citations. I added a few, are those sufficient? I could add more if needed. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdt1912 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource request

Hi Fæ. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Direct contact, you list yourself as having access to the British Library. I am looking for specific articles from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in the 1940–1985 range. Since your post at the resource page was about half a year ago, I just want to confirm that you still visit the Library. According to the Integrated Catalogue, the British Library has issues of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch between 1879 and 1959 (if I'm reading it correctly). Would it be possible for you to make copies of the articles? I'll list them here if you still visit the Library. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit distracted for around the next six weeks or slightly longer. I will be at the British Library at some point after that though I'm wondering how much copying of stuff you are thinking of. Is this something that a WM-UK microgrant would cover (I think the price was 38p per A3 copy) and how much time do you think it would take? Being after 1940 (and not music) I would guess that it would be possible to use something like the book scanner they have available to get A3 equivalent colour images directly onto a USB stick though I would prefer it if this were less than an hour of fiddling around. If you would prefer the copies earlier it might be worth mentioning it on REX. I'm also assuming that the articles might be within copyright, so presumably they can only be used to help with researching articles rather than being uploaded to Commons and I might be stopped by the staff due to copyright concerns, they tend to ask for a hefty copyright charge when in doubt. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Poroubalous (talk · contribs) has managed to get the articles for me. Thanks anyway, Goodvac (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Vishwaroopam

Hi can you keep an eye on this article. A user is repeatedly adding the budget figures (100 c) supported by a source from "behindwoods". --Commander (Ping Me) 11:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations

Hello, Fæ! That looks a most inviting treasure trove, and I shall enjoy rummaging this weekend. Thank you very much indeed for pointing it out to me. 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

Talk:Tipu's Tiger/GA1

Review has begun.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with a review. I'm holding back to give time for the main contributors to have a crack at responding. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you had uploaded the major pictures from the V&A for the Tipu's Tiger article. I think the addition of The Death of Munrow (side view) might be nice, but I couldn't find a general CC-SA license on the V&A page, so I didn't want to upload it myself. Perhaps you could take a look at it? KellenT 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, can't use it. The image would need a specific release (similar to the main Tipu's images) and though the figure is 180 years old, being a 3D work of art means that the photographer has a claim of copyright in the photograph itself. There is on ongoing discussion in the V&A about copyright but this may take some time to get around to releasing more material. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the effort! KellenT 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BLM-Shipping

Hi Fae, just so you know, I removed the speedy notice from Boloomo's talk page as I've re-tagged the article they created (and I figured one notice would suffice). It's a copyvio of this[13]. Just wanted to let you know, in case you noticed the delete and wondered why. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

IP edits

Hey Fae, as unexplained as this edit is, I actually don't disagree--what they blanked is undue weight and the last paragraph strikes me as a BLP violation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it, I'll take it off my watchlist as it was only the blanking that was flagging a problem for me, I suspect the BLP issues need more weeding. Fæ (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. I did a little bit of pruning and tagged the article. The IP may well have had some COI; let's see how they respond to my removal of a bunch of fluff in the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Tipu's Tiger a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: Tipu's Tiger's hero)

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Cool, it was a delight to be part of the international collaboration. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

OMG is all I can say in regards to the awesome liberty you took to my page. SarahStierch (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the best talk page gift I've ever seen, ever. OlYellerTalktome 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on the Arrangement and Characteristics of Parish Churches

Hi Fæ, I am writing to you as you are in contact with the British Library and you possibly know who could help me in this case. I have recently scanned an 1851 book by the Irish architect J. J. McCarthy, titled Suggestions on the Arrangement and Characteristics of Parish Churches, from a microfiche created from a book of the British Library, uploaded it to Commons and prepared it for Wikisource. The remaining problem are the twelve figures of this book which include some fine drawings by the draughtsman Patrick Hanlon. Despite all my efforts the scans do not look good as the tonal range of the microfiche is unsufficient. Even worse, any attempt to make the details of the darker parts visible lets the whole drawing be overshadowed by speckles, fingerprints, and dust spots on the microfiche. Hence it would be great if the 12 figures or at least the drawings by Patrick Hanlon could be rescanned from an original source. It is a rare book and only very few libraries have it including the British Library. Do you see a way how could this be done? I cannot do it from Germany and I am at the earliest in fall 2012 in Dublin where the National Library and Trinity College have it as well. And it would be worth the effort as J. J. McCarthy is the leading Irish Gothic Revival architect and this book had a lasting effect in Ireland. As I have recently managed to get his article deleted here (see here for details), I feel indebted to write a new article for him from scratch and am currently preparing it offline. Thanks for your help, AFBorchert (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is available to reserve in reading rooms other than rare books, so scanning is less of an issue (otherwise it would be very expensive). I should be able to scan it using the good quality books scanner which is available for public use. Scans are charged for, but I'll drop a note to see if this can come out of WM-UK microgrants (12 scans would be something less than 4 quid). I am next in the British Library on 23 August and have requested the book to give this a go. Drop me a note if someone else sorts this out for you first. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ, that sounds great and to wait until 23 August is no problem. It will take some time anyway to finish the new article. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first scan loaded at File:Arrangement of Parish Churches figs 3 and 4.jpg but wifi a bit slow so will do the others from home later. Unfortunately the British Library official scanner added a dirty great watermark but this could be removed with a bit of photo-shop tweaking (presumably it is a standard grey overlay that could be compensated for). Fæ (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, Fæ! The removal of the watermark does not appear to be a big problem (see File:Suggestions on the Arrangement and Characteristics of Parish Churches Figure 03 BL Scan.png) but unfortunately the resolution of the BL scanner appears to be quite low and the scan is not perfectly sharp. This is sufficient for reading but not really satisfactory for retrieving diagrams. Nevertheless, this scan is free from the myriads of dust spots I had on the microfiche and I am looking eagerly for your scans of the figures 10 to 12 as they have been the most problematic from the microfiche. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished two more and got distracted by attempting to remove the watermark in photoshop. There is probably a simple way of doing this effectively but I haven't worked it out yet. I have all 12 figures and will add the rest tomorrow. Fæ (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not worry about the watermarks, Fæ, just upload the scans as you got them. Thanks again, AFBorchert (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Will do. The images are also affected by the restoration, each page is covered on both sides by a fine tissue that must have been glued on in some way when the paper was bound into book form. This was highly apparent when handling but far less visible when scanned and accounts for some of the odd unfortunate blurring of fine detail. Fæ (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done Still puzzled by the BL forcing their nicest book scanner to leave this watermark on every image, I couldn't spot any way of over-riding this but if I try something similar I might ask at the copy office. Fæ (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ, this was still very helpful. I have just postprocessed one of the more challenging cases and you can see the difference by yourself:
From microfiche
My scan from microfiche
Your scan
Your scan from the original book
Thanks to your work, the east window and more details of the steeple are visible. It is interesting to note that both images share two lines that interrupt the regular painting. At first, I thought this could be a scratch on the microfiche but from your scan it becomes clear that this is a problem of the print. Apparently, the microfiche and your scan are from the very same book. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, glad to see the improvement in images as a result. The copy in the BL did have a sticker on it referencing the microfiche, so I suspect you are correct that this probably was the definitive copy they created microfiches from. Cheers Fæ (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OUTeverywhere

Hey Fae. Someone has accused you of having a conflict of interest here at COIN and apparently hasn't notified you. Really, I think they just think that you have a POV as opposed to a COI but haven't presented any actual evidence for either case. Just thought you deserved to be notified. OlYellerTalktome 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, hopefully they'll get it out of their system. I am pleased to see they have started to discuss on the article talk page rather than being tempted to repeatedly revert, so I suspect they will cool off shortly. They may even become productive. --Fæ (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notify as it was Fae who suggested I do this. I'm not repeatedly reverting (even if I think I'm in the right), and I'm trying to do things according to regular standards, but I'm fairly new to this so please try to bear this in mind before assuming bad faith/a need to cool off. Cheers. Teppic74 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We can only be judged by our actions here. OUTeverywhere is on my watchlist only because of some vandalism I reverted in April, otherwise I would never have picked up on the malformed AFD. I highlighted COI/N as you were making statements against me in an AFD which were hard to ignore. If you are seeking further advice (rather than a specific complaint) then WP:HD is a good bet for an independent viewpoint. If you are involved in other disputes then WP:DR explains what the various (many) options are. Cheers Fæ (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not involved in any other disputes or looking to create any -- I thought I was doing things correctly and clearly in this instance I was not, for which I apologised.Teppic74 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Me and Dorothy Parker

See if you can tell us apart. Seriously, much flattered to be nominated. Happy to be a Wikipedia ambassador. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think their copy deadline is Friday, so if you don't hear anything tomorrow they may have checked the story sufficiently well. I think you may be named as taking part, and possibly quoted (I have not seen the piece), so the follow up would be to confirm details and check if you want to tweak the facts... Great exposure for our GLAM events. --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sportsbookreview.com

Hi Fae,

I noticed that you have been reviewing the new entry I added for sportsbookreview.com and wanted to see what I could do to make sure the entry conforms to all Wikipedia standards.

I will be adding more references to the site and whilst I am closely connected to the website I ensured that I looked and wrote it with the most objective eye. That said, any recommendations you have to make sure we keep the entry would be most appreciated.

Thanks

Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSbr (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to have time to look at the details, I strongly suggest you seek some help at WP:COIN as without an independent eye, it is quite likely that your contributions might be later reverted as attempted advertising or the article deleted. In general, providing neutral content is very hard for an involved party to achieve but normally boils down to finding truly independent and high quality sources to support any notable facts included in the article. Cheers Fæ (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

St Joseph's Teachers College, Kingston Jamaica

Has apparently been recreated and I have no objections to that. Thanks. —Theda 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fae,

I am a regular user of Wikipedia. Today I was browsing and I came up on a page that 'supposedly' lists Universities and Colleges in Jamaica, and I noticed that St. Joseph's Teachers College was not listed as a Teacher's College in Jamaica. Hence, my attempt to create an article (ST. JOSEPH'S TEACHERS COLLEGE, KINGSTON JAMAICA). I have never tried this before (had no idea this could even be done) and I am having a warm time editing, citing references etc.

My initial idea was to suggest that someone create a page, but I didn't know how to do that either. So . . . . help please. I'd simply like to come on Wikipedia and see St. Joseph's Teachers' College listed as one of the Teachers Colleges in Jamaica.

Thank you.

PS. And thanks for the warm welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonih14 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

BL Philatelic Collections/GLAM

Fae, I have had a couple of long conversations with DB about the missing articles here and whether there was scope to both write those articles by visiting the department and extracting the information from their records (it is not available anywhere else) and whether there is scope to develop that work into some sort of guide to their department as a whole, possibly to be published by Wikimedia or the Library or jointly, either in paperback or electronically or both.

DB is 100% behind using Wikipedia to get his message out as they are limited in what else they can do for budgetary reasons. They do quite a lot of work with specialised philatelic organisations but Wikipedia is their method of choice for wider outreach because they know it works and in the GLAM project they have willing and reliable collaborators (though that only seems to amount to me and you!).

  • If I develop a proposal for a grant to write the missing articles beyond stub form (approx. 35 articles and growing every month) where should I post it and should I include an element for the eventual publishing of an actual handbook at the end?
  • As creating the articles beyond stubs, which I could do tomorrow if I wanted to, will inevitably involve multiple trips to the library to extract the information from their records, is there a risk that this is seen as original research?
  • Is a project such as this fully within the scope of Wikimedia's remit right up to the publication of a handbook at the end or is it just the creation of Wikipedia articles that would be supported?
  • You mentioned there were some precedents for this sort of thing. Could you point me in the right direction on those?

Sorry for all the questions but I just want to be clear about some of these things before I embark on such a large project, as if I give an undertaking to DB to do it I have to finish it. Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a bit tied up with personal matters for a few days plus a board matter that needs some time, I'll look into your questions next week. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Where to post - Mike Peel has been improving the micro grants process and is introducing "macro" grants for everything over GBP250. You could either make a proposal at wmuk:Microgrants or email Mike with your proposal so it can be posted to the right place.
If your research is based closely on verifiable records this is not "original research"; however some might argue that if you are synthesising facts from records (rather than papers) then you might fail the WP:SYNTH part of the same policy. This is an area (in my opinion) much misunderstood, and in this case I do not believe you would be advancing a position.
Someone started wikibooks:Philately and wikibooks:Wikibooks:Featured books provides plenty of examples. I imagine that your proposal fits within the same scope and can produce a guide of this type as well as a number of Wikipedia Articles. Perhaps a tricky part of the proposal will be to judge where you draw the line and WMUK funding stops. Personally I would judge such a proposal by total benefits including it being an innovative way of engaging with the BL, the trick of it being innovative is that we might not repeat it as we would not want to be funding a series of books with the BL.
Roger B. and myself are presenting to all staff at the BL on the 27th September. It would be handy to get a draft proposal in before then. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Fae, I have a further discussion with DB scheduled for September. Please don't announce anything until I have agreed the way forward. I will let you know what the outcome is in good time. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:OSUHEY ban discussion". Thank you. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can see there is a long discussion already and how to respond to the created articles is a slightly tangential point to banning sockpuppets. In this case my point of view is obvious, that mass deletion of new articles that appear to add value to the encyclopaedia in their own right would be a negative action to take, regardless of who created them or why. Give me another wave if the consensus is against me on this as my interpretation of G5 might need re-thinking, though please take note that as other editors have made contributions to at least some of the articles involved, deletion might be the wrong choice due to the part of G5 about not having substantial edits by other editors. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Top-grossing films

On behalf of several editors who have voiced their concern about the state of Bollywood films of 2011, I have decided to re-instate the table of Top-grossing films in the aforementioned article. Any further discussions and arguments will be continued only in the Discussion page of the article. If you find any problems or believe this move to be dangerous, please respond on the Discussion page. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 14:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You would be doing so against the legal advice we have received from WMF. As you have not made such a change, I assume you thought better of it. Cheers Fæ (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clampco Sistemi page

Hi Fae, I created the "Clampco Sistemi" page and I would like to edit it so it will not be deleted. Please can you give me some advice? Consider that company mentioned has a sound story, and is well known in the market worldwide so a lot of information can be added. I added a short description because I was trying to be as neutral as possible.

Thank you.
Gmenta (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly keep at it, we need expert editors. You may find wp:RFF a good place to ask for review comments. I suggest you take time to read wp:ORG, wp:COI and wp:RS. I am limited to a mobile phone this week so can't help much beyond this advice. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the slightest

Go for it. Just check if you see any sources that are attributed to Paul Spiring that he has actually written the source and is not just the editor or complier, if so swap out the 'writer' tag in the reference to 'editor'. There is a bit of reference puff going on as part of a larger problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

neutral guy

Hi, i would like to propose this administrator as a big neutral person (sarcastic) Alan347 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your belief that you can purge heresy from Wikipedia seems a lost cause. Perhaps you would find more satisfaction promoting your religious agenda in an appropriate forum rather than an encyclopaedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Christianity's concept of eternal life is in the kairos not after death only. The Egyptians thought eternal life starts at death and built the pyramids. Christians think it starts here and are ready to die any moment for it, not because they will go on to eternal life, but because they already have it. Alan347 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life

Hi, so basically I'm Alan plsd to meet you even though we're at war on the article lead because I think that Christianity sees the eternal life as starting here while you think that (traditionally ?? ) Christianity's concept of eternal life was strictly limited to the guys who have left us. We disagree. Alan347 (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think no such thing. As has been previously made clear, I merely wish to see all relevant points of view represented in the article with appropriate weight. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The point of view in Christianity is in the kairos. What was Jesus preaching ? life later ? No. Life now. Alan347 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are repeating the same points you raised on the article talk page which reveal that your arguments are based on a modern interpretation of the New Testament with no consideration of pre-medieval period Christian views, scant consideration of other texts or theological analysis and no consideration of fringe Christian views or the pre-Christian context. Wikipedia is not a place to start evangelising and with the majority of Wikimedians such an approach goes down like a lead balloon. If you want to keep repeating the same mantra, please do so on the article talk page as I'm not that interested in going around the same pointless unencyclopaedic time sink on my user talk page. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wilson Bohannan

Hi Fæ

I am really happy to see the start of the Wilson Bohannan article! As an avid fan and collector of Wilson Bohannan padlocks (past and present), I am quite knowledgeable about the history of the company and their padlocks. I took a few minutes to add to the article and to apply some mild corrections. I will be back to add more content and photos.

My knowledge on this topic comes from multiple interviews with two of Wilson Bohannan's direct descendants, the current president and CEO of the Wilson Bohannan Company, two plant visits, and studying historical documents including eight Wilson Bohannan catalogs dated between 1869 and 1930. My padlock collection includes approximately 200 Wilson Bohannan padlocks.

Thank you, monolith177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monolith177 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback; there is a lot more that can be said about the company and its history as well as their designs and I look forward to seeing your improvements. Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the encouragement. I will post more soon. monolith177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monolith177 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Emma <redacted>

Hey there. You marked the article Emma <redacted> as offensive and marked it for deletion under G10. I'd like to remind you to assume good faith, since all the article stated was that Emma liked eating a lot of sweet food, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Cheers! Ratibgreat (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Using someone's full real name, saying where they live and calling them a pie and muffin eater using several exclamation marks is highly problematic for many reasons. If it were about me, I would consider it a personal attack page. Please do not repeat full real names on the public wiki when discussing such vandal pages. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pauline Chiou

G'day,

The author of Pauline Chiou just removed your BLPPROD tag. It probably passes WP:GNG but the big problem is WP:COI as it appears to be an WP:AUTO - when will they learn?

Anyway, it's on my watchlist, BLPPROD tag readded and we'll see where it goes.

--Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

NNU accounts

Hello Fæ: Please see my explanation about our class project, in response to your remarks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xu_Song Best, Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for adding the comment. It might be a good idea to add a brief banner to new student account user talk pages to give some context. With this information most admins would take into account that you are coaching them and give a bit more space and time for you to tidy things up if mistakes are made. You might want to consider making more use of sandboxing articles rather than creating from scratch in main article space. Hopefully you have already been pointed to Wikipedia:Ambassadors. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Legendary metal rockstar prince amitabh rose mukherjee biography

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Legendary metal rockstar prince amitabh rose mukherjee biography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Drivenapart (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved the article (which I did not create and you will note I raised a BLPPROD on the target article) and left this redirect. CSD A7 is not intended to be used on such redirects. Please take care to check article histories before raising these speedy notices. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
PS as I cannot undo your mistake, you'll have to sort it out yourself. I'm not very impressed. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I admit my mistake in getting the tagging wrong, for which I apologise. However, the nature of renaming and re-linking an article for a non-notable artist, whilst not then deleting a non-suitably titled redirect (as can be done according the "delete a redirect") in itself is not perfect Wiki behaviour. I will sort out the page, however please be aware that both your attitude to this apparent and unintended slight (the "I'm not very impressed") and your failure to delete a page to helped cause this confusion and also puts people off trying to help in the first place. Thanks Drivenapart (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? It's definitely not perfect Wiki behaviour to chastise someone else for an action that's definitely within policy. I've declined the speedy because it clearly was not appropriate, and because you weren't the creator, you did the right thing in declining the speedy. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow now? Are you jumping in and chastising me for something else entirely? My point was about the redirect specifically. If the speedy on the article needs to be removed and put for for xfd then fine, I'm very happy with that as a quick Google on the person in question shows the claims not to be verifable. However, the point I'm having here is about the redirect that I apologised for speedying in the first place. I'm not arguing that, so why leap from behind Fae to point and shout? My point is a badly named redirected page can be deleted and perhaps in this circumstance should have been Drivenapart (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Drivenapart, I don't think you are getting the point here. You misapplied A7 to a redirect page, this is against policy. You misapplied A7 to the target article as A7 had previously been declined on the basis that there was a sufficient claim of notability (the decline was by me, as I was not the article creator), this is against policy. Criticising me for doing something that was within policy (fixing a bad article title) seems a poor reaction on your part. I seriously suggest you take some time out to review CSD policies before using them again and taking pot shots at others. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Drivenapart, I was essentially saying that Fæ's actions were the right thing to do and thus shouldn't receive your objections. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fae - I have indeed read and understood the CSD policy and have, as seems to be something that is being overlooked time and time again here, apologised numerous times for applying a CSD on a redirect page. Also, I'm not taking potshots. I was, like yourself, pointing out that maybe, just maybe, that following policy could have meant that the redirect could have been deleted which wouldn't have lead to this frankly pointless argument. That's not a pot-shot, that's just using the same tools I'm being beaten with here. It seems as though it's more about pride now rather than anything else as I have admitted my mistake and might explain the unnecessarily condescending tone being used to chastise me. From a person who is held is such respect as yourself I felt that was uncalled for - as I have said, we're all entitled to make a mistakes and as such we don't deserve to be hauled across the coals because I dared call you out on your tone and that following policy, on both our parts, might have stopped this happening in the first place. If any of what I've said there can be seen as a pot-shot, in my apology and asking you to accept it in the manner in which is was meant and the acknowledgement that following policy yourself and maybe deleting that badly-titled redirect page might not have meant me making my mistake and also acknowledging that your tone could have been lighter and more accepting, then I fail to see what else I can do to appease you as it would be clear this is more about your pride, being right and hammering the point home than accepting that I made as mistake and my apology for doing so.

Nyttend: I have no objections other than to the tone used to chastise me and the failure to acknowledge that I apologised for my mistake, which has now meant that I've had accusations of taking pot-shots levelled at me. Your suggestion that I should accept both the tone and this accusation is a little odd. I was merely saying that had the policy on redirect deletion been looked at, then the redirect might have been deleted as part of the move. As the key point here is about my acknowledged failure to check something regarding policy, I feel this is worth pointing out as it might have been missed too. Also, I'm unsure as to why you felt you needed to wade into this - I'm sure Fae is eloquent, intelligent and well-versed in Wiki without requiring back-up who also failed to grasp what I was saying (my apology, a statement that the tone used to point out my mistake was rather uncalled for and pointing out policy that may have been missed) whilst simultaneous making me feel that simply apologising isn't enough? Drivenapart (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was not fishing for an apology. My statement that I was unimpressed still does not seem to me particularly uncivil but used to impress that when using CSD you have significant impact on people who may be creating articles in good faith and others who then contribute to improve those articles. You made several failures in raising the two CSD A7s involved here and the word "unimpressed" seemed quite appropriate to describe my reaction in looking at the page histories which you appear to not have checked and then how you managed to use A7 incorrectly on a redirect page and a page with obvious claims of notability (whether true or not). Had you used say, G11 or G3 on the article there would be no issue here and these would have been different grounds to discuss compared to the already rejected A7. I can see you have raised a few recent speedy deletions after a bit of a break from doing these, and some of these I would also disagree with (such as a G11 on DaBaiTu Toffee which seems a good case for basic improvement and has been created in good faith by a Chinese student). You may want to approach someone experienced and independent for a review of your deletions and some off-wiki feedback on what you can do to improve your new article patrol activity to ensure you are interpreting policy accurately. Someone like WereSpielChequers (if available) would be very friendly and probably be able to stick to the forgiving tone you are looking for which I am unable to provide. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers; they are duly noted and certainly I'll look to improve. As one contributor to another, it wasn't a forgiving tone I was after but rather had you said "That's ok, can be sorted, now what you need to do is..." I wouldn't have gotten on my high-horse, after all my errors were made in good faith too. A less emotive response might have better suited from both parties. I think this boils down to a matter of perception *shrug* We'll leave this here Drivenapart (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I came in because I was the admin who declined the speedy deletion; I don't know that I've ever had reason to come to Fæ's userspace before. I responded despite your apology because you stated that you believed Fæ had acted incorrectly, when in fact, s/he had done everything properly. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcome message

I am highly offended by your "welcome to wikipedia" message, because I am not "new to wikipedia". Your overuse of tags and templates instead of well-thought out messages and responses is insulting to users. Please take some time to actually improve wikipedia instead of tagging articles and expecting others to improve it. Thank you. WTF? (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you keep on being insulted by so many things, please consider that this may be your problem rather than mine or Wikipedia's. I can only assume you mean this user warning which was not a welcome message but a standard warning intended to explain to you in a civil and respectful way why your actions are non-collaborative and against policy. The warnings have a process for escalation, if I and others never gave you a recognized warning then a later admin would find it more difficult to take action should you persist in disrupting Wikipedia's collaborative processes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-BL

Hi Fæ,

I'd like to offer any assistance I can for the GLAM project at the British Library. I've been an editor for a couple of years now, and have been a civil servant (working in Criminal Justice) for longer. Most of my Wikimedia related work has been on the English language Wikipedia, although I've also uploaded about 40 images or so at commons. Most of my work is on article improvement and creation, although I have managed to systamatically miss all the BL editing sessions so far due to work constraints and some rather badly timed holidays! I do have an "in" at the BL - in that my wife is the sole full time employee of the Friends society there (hence why one of my DYK's was on that charity), and I'm also registered as a reader there. I've also created a couple of other BL related articles since which were both DYK's, on the Derring Roll and Christopher Wright (academic) (he's also deputy chairman of the Friends, and doesn't know he has his own article). As part of my work on expanding the articles on dog breeds on the English Wikipedia, I've used the reading facilities on several occasions, even going to the newspaper facility before it was moved north. If there is anything you could use me for, then please let me know. Regards, Miyagawa (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can see you are registered on Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Participants which is a good way to ensure you are on a priority for contact, and you are probably aware exciting things are in the offing. If you can make it to one of the wikimeets (see m:Meetup/London/50 for the next one on 16th Oct), I would be happy to talk through what the BL staff have in mind and where some support might be useful. If you are a regular at the BL, it is worth adding your offer of support at WP:REX#Direct contact as every now and then a simple physical check of a source at the BL resolves all sorts of issues. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to make to the London meetup and I've offered my services at WP:REX#Direct contact. Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Album notability and some back history

I posted a note at WP:AN about Silent Films For The Blind which you tagged for notability, in case you are interested. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a bit tight on wiki-time to investigate myself. I'll keep an eye open for any results. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

semi protect

Thank you. If they gave awards for persistence, our IP may have received it. I was so tired of it, I just had to build an obscure joke into the image on Inaugurated eschatology. Just click on the image to see who it was intended for. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Groupalia

I think that this company should be in Wikipiedia because it's an important business company in Spain that has over 600 employees around the world. It operates in 8 different countries and has higher annual income. This company is as important as Groupon in Spain. Please consider the publication of this stub. I aim all the community to complete with more relevant information or details. --Mirtres (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll add some general help to your talk page. The article is judged on its own merits as an encyclopaedia entry. Please take care that the article appears as neutral (and non-advert in style) as possible even if this means trimming it back to the bare bones. It is essential that independent sources support any claims made for notability, such as the number of members, rather than relying on the company website as a primary source of information. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Letter of reference

I had hoped to give the user a chance to move the content by their own initiative. :( JORGENEV 10:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea, but unfortunately considering the background of article recreations and apparent sock puppeteering, I think it is reasonable to take more positive action. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You one of them immediatists, eh? Well, I suppose you are in the right. See ya around. JORGENEV 10:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope, per the word "background". Examining patterns and history and then taking positive action is not "immediatism" and characterising it as such with this non-word is an unhelpful negative stereotype of an action taken in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

DR

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Dan Savage". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.128.157 (talk • contribs)

I think this discussion is done. Please be cautious in pursuing language which may cause offence in BLPs, when in doubt in these areas it is always better discuss first rather entrench positions by using reverts. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

About Khosrow Motazed Amoli and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khosrow Motazed Amoli

Yikes. I appear to have been somewhat of a muddle-headed wombat about this. Following WP:BLPPROD, the AfD nomination is patently incorrect, and I should have known better. Can the AfD nomination be removed? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You can ask for a speedy close on the basis of making a technical error ;-) --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Referred to the indisputable master of all things AfD--Shirt58 (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Since the blp prod and the AFD were started around the same time, let's let both run their course. That way if somebody adds a source of some kind but it's still clear that the subject isn't notable, it can still be deleted when the AFD expires. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fæ and Ron - if a coexistent blp prod and an AFD are fine by both of you, then ça plane pour moi. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Multiple deletion processes in parallel are unusual but can happen correctly under policy/guidelines. My understanding is that it is not normally encouraged as it can turn into a deletion blitz which can put off potential improvement as the screen fills up with deletion notices... --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrigation systems of Mesopotamia

This might make a nice little article, but it's currently a mess. Could it be incubated, rather than prodded? Bearian (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would have no objection if you want to do this, though considering the time it has been about without improvement, the criteria for incubation may not be met (there must be someone willing to improve it). I don't doubt that with your experience, if you were interested then it would not take long to tuck in a few sources. --Fæ (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Top grossing Bollywood Films of 2011

Isn't this a copyvio? -Managerarc™ talk 13:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we follow the legal advice we asked for. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for you guide Shahrulazwad (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MRSM Terendak

Dear Fae, could you kindly review my article and consider whether your maintenance tag can now be removed? Thank you Shahrulazwad 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrulazwad (talk • contribs)

 Done I had taken it off my watchlist, thanks for resolving the notability question. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for your guidance. Cheers. Shahrulazwad 14:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrulazwad (talk • contribs)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Hi Fæ. Would you please semi-protect this article again? You've just reverted one IP, and there'll be hundreds more in the coming days. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. BTW, most of the information presented in the article has been made up-to-date. I guess we can just keep reverting vandals. Scieberking (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fæ. Hope you're doing great. What seems to be the problem with "biggest opening day"? It's following the same ole 1,3,6,10 format. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check the last version, you can see it actually duplicates a full list of top 10. I note the other tables include complete lists but have assumed that they are not directly lifted from BOI straight off the same web page but a result of new analysis. --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was James SLMN's "hard work". Now that I've reverted those edits, I think it is safe to remove the copyvio tag. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

MonmouthpediA

Hi Fae

Thanks for your advice, I've removed the MonmouthpediA section from Monmouth.

All the best Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi again

Do you think it is the right place to put a link to MonmouthpediA under the in development section for Europe? http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Projects_%26_Events

Also do you know anyone who knows about copyright? I have a lot of photos that are from around 1920, also a lot that the person who took them has died, not sure if I can just put them on commons? Also someone has volunteered to give a lot of his copyrighted text and images to MonmouthpediA, don't know how he can release the copyright on it.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. Yes.
  2. Me, probably. If the person taking photographs died less than 70 years ago, you will need to confirm the copyright of their estate and then email some evidence in to OTRS via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, if more than 70 years ago then commons:template:PD-old-70 applies (for the UK, some variations apply in other countries or sometimes it can depend on the nature of the photo such as photographs of 2D works of art); it is actually far more straightforward if the photographer is unknown. Anyone can donate text by providing a release statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the text then has a verification number to reference. A release boiler-plate for emails is at WP:CONSENT. --Fæ (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

Please help me save the pages Robotics Design and ANAT technology. I am being assuleted by people that make accusations and votes but present no worthy evidence. Democracy in this case is that of a racoon and a fox voting to eat a squirrel, and this is unlawful, unfair, unreasonable, and I need help. Thanks.Canadiansteve (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please be aware of WP:CANVASS. You seem to have notified plenty of experienced folks already. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Image Tags/Attributes

So, how would I go about properly adding copyright/source information to my photos? Is it all after the fact or is it a matter of knowing a format for the comments property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielryan2012 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be better for you to consider why adding "Big ayuss tittehs!" to articles is not acceptable before adding license claims to doubtful images. See Vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Foreign Relations

Instead of deleting the entry I was hoping you or another admin could have worked with me on improving it. My entry didn't stray too far from others like Foreign Policy Journal for example. Johnllyman (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You were helped, repeatedly. There have been 3 deletion discussions and several experienced editors looked carefully at sources presented and would have searched for alternatives. The website you intend to promote does not have sufficient evidence in independent quality sources to address the notability criteria. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Fæ,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet article

Hi Fae,

As per your recent protection and posts on the above article, you rightly note the lack of discussion between editors. That's because the article has been the persistent target of a very small number of users attempting to edit the article to their tiny minority perspective (that Tammet is a liar, cheat, fraud, etc...) in contravention of hundreds of reliable published secondary sources - including several published peer-reviewed scientific papers - and Wikipedia's own rules regarding the editing of living persons biography articles.

A consensus was painfully reached several months back - incorporating the perspective of a journalist (and memory tricks enthusiast), Joshua Foer, who has written a book chapter advancing his own views on Tammet. Several long-time Wikipedia editors, including one of the researchers who met and studied Tammet (Ed Hubbard), contributed at length to the discussion.

Nothing would seem to have changed since the book's publication to alter that consensus. The one or two individuals attempting to change the article are wanting to cherry-pick quotes/anecdotes from the book (only the ones that suit their viewpoint of course) because they argue the current article lacks 'balance'.

It's pretty tough to discuss with individuals who basically believe Tammet is a liar, cheat, fraud and that there's some huge media and scientist conspiracy to silence them. I don't blame other editors for keeping well clear.

I'm pretty sure the edits being proposed (or rather, persistently and obsessively placed into the body of the article without any discussion or regard to existing consensus between editors) would come under Wikipedia's rules concerning fringe theories, original research, and 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in this particular case it is probably quite handy for me to stay uninvolved. I have not researched into the sources but if this is a blatant BLP issue you may find WP:BLPN a rather useful source of help for someone to take a look at the sources and nature of cherry picking going on. As mentioned on the talk page, there are a number of Dispute resolution processes that may help resolve this issue and when the article gets unprotected I strongly suggest you stick to the 'higher ground' and avoid reverting in any way that may be interpreted as edit warring. If you can firmly establish a consensus this will make any dubious changes in the future much easier to handle correctly. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fae,

As mentioned above, a consensus was already firmly established among editors including several long-time Wikipedians and a researcher who was directly involved in the various scientific tests Tammet underwent. The users are not bringing anything new to the discussion and are basically attempting to force their fringe theory views onto the article. What should be done in such an instance? Oughtprice99 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I did have a quick look through the talk archive, is there a particular part of the discussions you could point to as the existing consensus? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Yes, start from the top of the page - you'll see from its length that there was quite a lot of discussion about Foer's book and its claims/contents already. Specifically, read the input of long-time Wikipedians off2riorob, Enchanter, and EdHubbard (the researcher who was one of those to test Tammet in person). Enchanter's comment from 9 June 2011 gives a good flavor of the consensus. Basically, Foer's book was considered borderline for reliability/notability and consensus finally reached about a sentence briefly incorporating the journalist's perspective of Tammet.

The user now aggressively editing the article is trying to alter it by including certain primary sources cited in Foer's book (as did user Bill121212 at the time). The main primary source in question appears to be a decade-old defunct webpage that Foer claims was Tammet's former website. But no other secondary source refers to this site, and its author is simply assumed rather than confirmed (for example there's no copyright notice, and Tammet's name is misspelled throughout).

As I said above, nothing has changed since book publication to alter the existing consensus.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I could find time to take a proper read through at some point tomorrow and then comment as a third party, however once I am involved I would no longer take any actions as an administrator. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to run late on this, distracted by chapter affairs. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Believe first title in talk page re-edited recently. Was titled 'disputed claims'. Opening lines recently added and user's whole original posting removed. Please check.188.29.61.207 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Charlie Straight

Hello Fæ. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charlie Straight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the award bit was added to the page after the A7 and of course changes the scenario. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Are you the administrator of the above artical? If you are then do you know this artical is a disgrace on wikipedia and on anyone's who is responsible for it? It gives absolutely no information. I havent see a worse managed artical on wikipedia.. how long do you think it will take for this one to become a featured artical? You are quick to edit any comments but cant you guys just decide a good solution for this artical (delete, complete, anything but the horrible state it is in) and apply it? I am sorry to be rude but someone with authority does need to take some action sooner or later. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, administrators do not have articles. I agree it is not a good article, please read the background on the article talk page for the reasons why it is so oddly formatted. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
why not just show top 1 in every table? what information does 3rd, 6th and 10th give to you? are they supposed to help us interpolate the amount and names of the movies in between? Your backgrounds on the talk page are not an excuse good enough for the horrible result, if you are one of the administrators you are responsible. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Bystander effect, the more administrators there are, the less likely anyone of them will take a meaningful action.. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the consensus on a better solution, please use the article talk page. There is no action here for an administrator to take, this was a consensus on how to respond to the WMF legal advice. You make it sound as if there were a crowd of admins watching a car crash, take some time to read through the discussions and the archive before condemning everyone in sight. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

GLAM & Cambridge

Hi, I'm interested in seeing if I can help anything glam-ish happen in Cambridge. I know some librarians, archivists, historians etc. at the university, and would be happy to approach them with ideas. Charles Matthews suggested I talk to you. I'd love to get a sense of the sort of initiatives that have worked elsewhere, and what's made them work. Dsp13 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, following up by email. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

High Speed Pursuit Syndrome

Thanks for your note regarding High Speed Pursuit Syndrome. I don't doubt that you're right about it failing to meet speedy deletion criteria. As such, I've proposed it for unspeedy deletion - if the author (or anyone else) wants to contest it, I'll probably take it to AfD. Cheers. TheMadBaron (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Indian films

Someone has created an article called List of highest grossing Indian films. It uses some of the same sources as List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, yet has some un-sourced and badly-sourced stuff and a full 1-5 listing. I am not sure how to tag it. Could you help? BollyJeff || talk 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources did not match the figures anyway, so purged them and prodded the article. If the PROD get deleted it may have to go to AFD, again. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No prob's for reverting. Thanks for your kind info. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

on Tammet discussion page

see this.This is the original text, to which that IP erroneously edited. You reverted an editing that corrected the error. You edited based on misunderstanding.--121.119.167.149 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the connection between the diff you have provided of an entire section of the talk page being moved by a bot into the archive to the change you have made here introducing a paragraph of text and changing the title of a section. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Original Talk Page started with 'Disputed Claims' on 13 April 2011. Some user has removed the whole section. Please restore using archive. Thanks.188.29.9.177 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to get time to have a proper look this week as I am committed to some job interviews. If you would like an earlier response, please try using {{admin-help}} on your user talk page with a description of what to check. --Fæ (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

whole section is here. And you erroneously deleted the first paragraph of another section, which I already restored.--211.5.10.58 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mr IP188...., I hope you already found the archived section. By the way I am concerned about 124.150.32.120's neglect of the rules...--211.5.13.169 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Taro Aizu (again)

Dear Fæ, you provided administrative assistance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taro Aizu (2nd nomination), and so I'm boldly requesting you assist again, now that the article has been recreated once more, this time with a macron on the O, at Tarō Aizu. I don't know what the most appropriate action is (speedy? salting?) and that's why I'm looking for help from someone with greater experience (you).

There is no claim of notability in the article. The two works mentioned are self-published at Lulu.com, and the one reference cited, to inclusion in a journal, doesn't support the claim. The new article seems fairly identical to the deleted one, as far as I can recall. Thanks for any assistance. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have put this up for speedy as a repost. Checking the last deleted version from some months ago, the deleted version was actually significantly better than the recreation so there seems little reason to go to a third deletion discussion. However as several months have past, this is not a persistent recreation, or even blatant spamming, so I have opted for not deleting it on sight or salting for the moment though probably if recreated in haste then salting would be the way to go. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I suppose the same should be done for this redirect: Taro Aizu. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done Fæ (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TREC notability

Hi Fæ, I'm hoping to get your feedback on the Text Retrieval Conference article -- see question in talk page jrf (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, may take a while, rather busy for the next week or so. --Fæ (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Cripes, busy into next week. It's on my list. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Bias on Wikipedia

You should be aware of impending consequences as a result of deleting/hiding my comments on the Discussion Page of the Wikipedia entry on Evan Davis, and then blocking me from further edits. I am currently writing a piece for a national paper (to be published shortly) on the politics of Wikipedia editing, and how in particular certain political biases now operate. Although compiling instances of this in terms of anecdotal (indirect) evidence has not been difficult, obtaining primary examples (directly affecting me) has proved rather more elusive. Until now, that is, since you have inadvertently provided me with just the kind of illustration hitherto lacking of political bias on Wikipedia. It is my intention not just to name you and others in the forthcoming article, but also to detail the bias evident in the very language used to dismiss someone holding a different political viewpoint, then to delete/hide the latter, and finally to block its expression. Such bias is clear from the way deleting/blocking a different political viewpoint is dismissed as – among other things – “a rant”, “off-topic”, “stop playing silly games” and “delete rubbish”. This despite the fact that the case for the inclusion of a political context to Evan Davis’s career in the media, made by me and another contributor to the Discussion Page, went unanswered by you, notwithstanding its obvious relevance to an understanding of his current media prominence. By contrast, deliberations about Evan Davis’s sexuality (intrinsically more offensive to the subject of the Wikipedia article), an aspect which as I pointed out concerned no one but him, were left intact on the same Discussion Page. In short, a laissez faire approach which underlines the point I’m making: that your objections were to comment about Evan Davis’s politics, not his sexuality. I had intended to complain about your role in all this to Wikipedia, but this won’t now be necessary. When my article appears, I am confident that you will be called upon by the most senior people in the Wikipedia hierarchy to account for your actions in this episode. 14 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.226.2 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to account for my actions and their reasoning in line with our well established policies. Please ensure that the right comment is attributed to the right editor (I certainly did not accuse anyone of silly games). Best of luck with your newspaper article, I look forward to reading it. Should you want an interview please do get in touch using the "E-mail this user" you can find in the tool-bar on the left of your screen.
For any casual on-looker, you can find the comments being referred to at diff, as can be seen, I rather mildly pointed to policy and collapsed the comments rather than deleting them as others had chosen to do up to that point. Due to edit warring on the Evan Davis talk page, the IP account involved was then blocked for 72 hours (by a different administrator). At the time of writing these forum-like non-neutral comments are still on the page, just collapsed as failures of TALKNO. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real Students of Telecom

I first want to thank you for the guidelines that you have sent. I also noticed that you have marked my article for deletion and I feel that it was unjust. The article was just posted yesterday and there is more information that has to be added. The article is a relevant topic that did not have a chance for people to read and discuss. It is very informative and should not be notified for deletion until all the information is posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionSoroity (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can add some independent reliable sources showing notability, then there will be no problem in keeping the article. The deletion discussion normally runs for seven days, so there is plenty of time to improve the article. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A favour

Could you take a look at The Three Ravens? There's a long drawn out dispute about an image which I and others consider inappropriate (and possibly copyright). I called for a consensus on the talk page, and only the perpetrator of the image (I think - unsigned post) supported it. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look this over (and possibly check the book if you have a chance - I can't see anyone just drawing this thing to post it here...). Thanks. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm tied up with a workshop today and then committed to a preparing for a presentation on Monday (both Wikimedia related, so that's my Wiki-time eaten up). It may be better to approach another admin unless this can wait for a week or two. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Things are getting interesting - the image in question has been removed by someone and the originator hasn't tried to put it back. When you get a moment will do. It's been going on for months and months, anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films

I have two concerns regarding the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films.

First, I cannot understand why you removed coloring. Your argument about films being replayed endlessly is, sorry to say, senseless as the same applies for Hollywood films (actually, more) and yet you have not removed coloring for that. I would like to know why you are so vocal about removing everything from a Bollywood-related list, but do nothing regarding a Hollywood-related list.

Second, I would like to know whether you have obtained permission from Box Office India to utilize their figures. The list has now come back to a 1 to 10 format, so i was wondering.

I sincerely hope you can satisfactorily answer my queries. AnkitBhattWDF 07:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the same rationale should apply to other articles, but that is not a good reason to ignore this article and as pointed out, the guidance of WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color is clear enough.
As for the list, BOI have not given permission and so the advice at CIL still applies. The user that re-added the copyright violation has been warned previously and is now blocked. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I insist on knowing exactly why you call coloring in the Bollywood list unnecessary, and why you find comparison with a Hollywood list "not a good reason". In my frank opinion, your answer looks more like a rather weak attempt at covering up your personal intentions, and you have most certainly not answered my query satisfactorily. I shall be opening up a new discussion regarding this mater later, unless you explain yourself in the clearest and most precise terms. AnkitBhattWDF 09:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not getting the point but I think my answers are sufficient. I suggest you either create a local consensus for the article on how to highlight films still being shown in cinemas, or carefully consider what MOS and RECENT say on the topic. If you suspect me of unhelpful "personal intentions" then I suggest you explain what those are or follow Dispute resolution if you would think that would expose me in some way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll say it point blank. I think that you are ready to preserve Hollywood-based film articles in their form, but purposely want to make the Bollywood-related articles less detailed simply so that Bollywood-related articles will always be below Hollywood. Your repeatedly unsatisfactory replies tends to prove my point about your tilt towards Hollywood. I hope I have made myself clear. I am going to bring back coloring for currently-running films, since I can clearly see that their is no fair judgement on your part regarding this issue. And repeatedly bringing up MOS and RECENT just shows your ignorance. Those two rules apply as much for Hollywood films as for any other language films. In case you disagree, this matter will be taken up in the talk page of the List, not here. perhaps then we can get a better idea of where everybody stands. AnkitBhattWDF 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Reaching a local consensus is as I advised. Please remember that I am not responsible for Hollywood related film articles or Bollywood related film articles, the reason that OSE is the consensus view, is so that we can make changes without lots of editors vetoing all change with the argument that everything else must be fixed first. Your assumptions about my motivation are a failure to assume good faith, particularly in consideration of the fact that a local consensus on this matter already exists in addition to the standard MOS guideline, see Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films#Blue colouring - proposal to remove from the article. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You are very conveniently side-stepping the fact that MOS is applicable for Hollywood film lists/ If you are so persistent about this issue, I will remove coloring from the List of highest-grossing films. But no, you will revert it back so as to "achieve consensus", isn't it? Please stick to one rule. Do not use the same rule in one place and disregard it elsewhere. And you may tag me as a vandal but my argument is just and certainly much better than yours. We shall now discuss in the talk page. And please, do not talk to me about matters of good faith. I can as easily bring up matters of neutrality. It is best not to go to that area. Regards, AnkitBhattWDF 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I am unclear as to why you think I am side-stepping anything. MOS applies everywhere, if you wish to make some edits to List of highest-grossing films to make it compliant, then that would probably be a good idea. I can not remember making any substantial edits on that article and I can see no local consensus to deviate from MOS. Again, I am not personally responsible for fixing every article on Wikipedia before making changes to your favourites. Fæ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not a question of "favorites", as you so naively put it. This is about neutrality and the lack of a strong governing principle which applies everywhere. i have consulted with another editor, and he is not averse to putting back color. Using OSE is simply not a good enough excuse. And if you think that "local consensus" is all that is needed to obey or disobey a rule, I suggest you go back and carefully read through all the WP policies before speaking. And your so-called "consensus" involved how many editors? Two? Wow, that's one hell of a "consensus". And if you are still defiant and intent on making excuses, I simply cannot help. I am replacing coloring in the list. And please, do not attempt at reverting my harmless edit as a show of vandalism, as it simply isn't a case of vandal editing but a case of simply wrong thinking. Thank you, and good day. AnkitBhattWDF 14:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you consider the good practice of BOLD. Going against even a weakly supported local consensus and being aggressive in tone here does not help your argument. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Having an aggressive tone is much required to deal with unreasonable editors, and I'm sure you will not disagree on that. And the fact that I'm actually even bothering to ask your opinion shows my patience with somebody like you. And please, do not be so hypocritical and say that I'm going by a weak local consensus. YOU obtained "consensus" from one editor (Scieberking). Understand the limit between careful speaking and false boasting. AnkitBhattWDF 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. You have been invited to share your views and provide consensus on the matter of coloring regarding the current-running films of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Please go here to add your viewpoint. Cheers. AnkitBhattWDF 14:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm just checking that this widget works Fae, so I couldn't think of a better place to test it Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Terminology with Bears

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Talk:Bear_(gay_culture)#Proposal_to_delete_unsourced_terms.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

awakeshop.fr

Hi I tried to upload an entry about our project awakeshop.fr. It was deleted as it was deemed commercial. I understand this but we are not a commercial focused company. We are a new idea trying to change how things are done in the world, and we need all the support we can get.

http://www.awakeshop.fr/en/Awake-empowers-to-change-their-country

Thanks.

Awakeshop.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awakeshopfr (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the organization is commercial or not, but rather that the article is in essence an advert. Please take some time to check the guidance on conflict of interest along with the user name policy and organizational notability on your talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ersinsahin

Hi Fae, I've just noted that you have blocked the above blog-spammer. Whilst I was checking back through his previous edits from August, for potential missed spam entries, I noted his edit on this article (the edit is in Turkish):-Şahin K. Could you take a look at the article as it appears to be a promotional article, which may have slipped through the wiki filtering net. The article includes multiple external links to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the Myspace and personal websites of the person the article is about, which are marked up as porno content, though no bot has deleted them (ref: WP:ELNO). There are several claims about Şahin K, Yet there are no references of any kind on the article page, nor has the article been tagged in any way. I'm unsure if the article is permitted as is, or if it should be listed at AfD ? Richard Harvey (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of the links would fail ELNO and it is not normal to have warnings next to the links (personally I couldn't see any pornography on the links anyway, just the comedy aspects of his work which includes some guys with knobs as noses on their faces, but I haven't checked in any detail). I also had a surf around for better sources but it's a mixed back of promotional junk. I suggest you may want to PROD the article on the basis of a lack of any substantial quality sources and if the PROD gets removed, I suggest going ahead with a Articles for deletion so there can be a fuller discussion against PORNBIO or ENT (as a comedian) and a discussion of the somewhat weak single source currently included. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fae, Thanks for the reply. I went to Prod it and a warning came up saying it had been proposed for deletion previously, see:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şahin K, but kept as borderline. However the discussion appears somewhat odd as there are four delete votes, including the proposer, one of which appears to be by an unregistered editor, two keep votes by one 'vitriolic' editor and another by the closing editor, who closed the discussion two days after it was proposed for deletion. However I also note that the WP:Prod guidelines indicate an article can only be prodded once, so am dubious about AfD. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Though you cannot re-PROD the article, as the last AFD was over 3 years ago and the sources problem has not been resolved in that time, it would be entirely legitimate to AFD it again, if you believe that there has been a reasonable attempt to address BEFORE and you believe that there is little prospect of the article improving in the near future. If anyone seriously wants to keep this article, they merely have to find a couple of good quality sources. Three or more years without improvement is quite telling in this case.
One last consideration, take care to consider BIAS, as the single source is non-English there may be issues with using predominately English text search engines. However this is not strictly a reason for never raising such an article for a second AFD. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I've not AfD'd an article before, so I will have to go an familiarise myself with the criteria and processes, then read through some other AfD's. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime I have placed a multiple template on the article which may prompt the originating editor to improve it. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

hi

hey hello!

I wanted to ask: Do you have access to the Wall Street Journal of 1996?

I was looking for: Bishop, Jerry E., A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1996

For this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&oldid=464519605#Is_the_United_States_Senate_a_reliable_source.3F

I'm not sure if you can share the whole article legally but we could use a quote that identifies (and confirms) the 3 demonstrations.

This is/was the section without sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&oldid=463237239#Media_coverage_and_public_demonstrations

If you cant access it could you copy my post to WP:RX or tell me to ask there.

Thanks,

84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the full quote from LexisNexis which I think is fair to repeat here (it appears to be only the abstract). Let me know if you were expecting a different kind of search, I suspect there may be more on JSTOR:
Wall Street Journal

January 29, 1996, Monday

A Bottle Rekindles Scientific Debate About The Possibility Of Cold Fusion

Byline: By Jerry E Bishop

Jerry E Bishop article discusses the renewed debate over cold fusion, focusing on chemist James A Patterson's 'Patterson Power Cell'; Patterson has turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim (M)

Fæ (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks.
On JSTOR I found "undead science"[14] but it isn't primarily about the subject. Maybe I'm not looking properly. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

no fun allowed

get a life nerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxmetalgearxx (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hi Fae,

Unfortunately the call on whether or not to run that banner is not mine to make. I was asked to set them up a banner campaign on behalf of the research committee, but I don't have yay/nay authority over it. You'll need to speak with Rcom or with Erik for that. Sorry. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that the WMF does not feel responsible for governing the inclusion of banners that may be seen as free adverts for third parties on the Wikimedia websites. Unfortunately the discussion is now at ANI as it has been picked up as an issue by others, I was hoping this would be quietly resolved and avoid necessary drama. If you have any position on the matter you may want to add it to that noticeboard. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Hello there. This notice is being sent to inform you that there is currently a consensus discussion going on here. It will be greatly appreciated if you could participate in this debate, as you have worked on this article before and are familiar with its working and history. Thank you. AnkitBhattWDF 09:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage and It Gets Better

I don't know what your problem is, as there is a general consensus that Dan Savage has expressed Transphobia and Biphobia in the Talk Section of his Wiki page. The addition I made was verified with VERY reliable sources & isn't libelous or defamatory. Check the links if you think I'm wrong, as they include direct references to where Savage has said and done Transphobic and bi-phobic things, both in print and on video. Kate Dee (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with purely critical sections in a biography is that they often are not given appropriate weight. Solutions, such as integrating the glitterbomb incident into to rest of the body of the article, are worth discussing on the article talk page. --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You asked for suggestions on responding to new editors. In cases which are not vandalism, I believe it is helpful to avoid canned response templates with editors who have never participated previously. Templates are convenient but they rarely explain the byzantine workings of Wikipedia to someone who has never edited before. I certainly agree that personal attacks against you are completely uncalled for. I feel that use of impersonal templates for someone making good-faith substantive edits is not the ideal way to welcome new editors who don't know the 10,000 rules that have developed since you and I started editing. I give obvious vandals and trolls templates all the time, but for those who appear to be making sourced and productive contributions, warning templates often only add to the frustration.
We're also in complete agreement on the Dan Savage article. We should report accusations of bigotry (undisputed) vs. describing him as a bigot (disputed). Thanks also for all your heard work here! You have obviously put a lot of time into this project! Jokestress (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Umbrella Media is the informal name given by the daily commuters(including me :)) to the LED screens fitted on the cities busiest traffic junctions. Because of its hull type umbrella shape design on top of the structure with red and white colors, people have started calling it Umbrella TV. It is gaining widespread popularity because of its placement, right beside a traffic signal, making it a hard to miss thing. It belongs to Umbrella Media Worke, which is the O&M wing of International Techno Media. Due to legal risks involved, ownership of installment sites have been taken up by International Techno Media, while O&M activities are taken care by Umbrella Media Worke. I hope i've correctly depicted the arrangement here.

If possible, it will be very kind of you to show me the direction which will make this article clear, informative & impactful. Thanks & Regards Dexter.enemy (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For notability of the company to be demonstrated there need to be independent reliable sources showing impact. Stories about installations without any mention of the company do not achieve that. If Umbrella Media is a sub-division or brand within the portfolio of a larger organization, then an article about the parent organization may be justifiable if sources can be produced for that parent. Individual brands are often sub-sections within a parent article if they are weak on sources to justify a stand alone article. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Editor, Both organisations in the article are equally responsible for the functioning of this Umbrella Media/Umbrella TV/LED Screen Network. After your suggestion, i edited the article so that it shows the work breakdown between these two forms. Please note that both firms are independent and are working in collaboration. One firm is doing the front room job, whereas the other doing the backroom. Umbrella Media is a dis-joint, which both said organisations share. Please share opinion on the future course of action/modification. Thanks & RegardsDexter.enemy (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cookie!

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

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For the new comments on the BFRA for the SharedIP bot! Finally (hopefully) a discussion starts with the WMF. I really don't like how the WMF is starting to "test" and add new features and other stuff in the last few months. mabdul 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: send without wikilove ;) mabdul 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing

I'm just having fun man, you have no sense of humor if you think I'm vandalizing stuff. lemonparty.org=this site now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.210.132 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

2012

Season's Greetings & Happy New Year. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fæ/2011&oldid=1151012812"