This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fences and windows. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
FYI, I left more clues at User_talk:Xabier_Cid#Klaus Ebner in cyrillic-language wikis. Same pattern, different names, lots of Austrian IPs. This was an excellent campaign, bending GAN outcome here and creating very convincing B-classes elsewhere. Many editors jumped into correcting the original poster's grammar in good faith and actually turned these stubs into something decent.
Good digging. Fences&Windows 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You had informed me about this investigation. Now I cannot find it anymore under the link indicated. Has there already been a solution? Or has the discussion been moved elsewhere? Thank you. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Does that section really say anything? It defines a criminal act, but not apparently to any purpose. Fences&Windows 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears to have been taken from what used to be at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), but I agree that it doesn't really serve any purpose. Perhaps it should touch on "criminal acts" being one of the most common type of events that are brought up in Afds and briefly reiterate some of the other applicable points already in Wikipedia:Notability (events). Location (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, the text does come from there. This merge made sense, but in practice it doesn't say anything that the rest of the guideline doesn't. I've added a "See also" to the section about people (I also added in a note to that section about the presumption of innocence, which was one of the useful bits of the old guideline). I think expanding it to touch on common issues with articles about criminal acts with respect to notability would be good, if we can think of anything pertinent. Fences&Windows 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe your edit here is being taken out of context in this Afd, so I am wondering if another re-write should be done. Something like: "As with other events that receive intense media coverage, an article about a criminal act should meet the above guidelines." Thoughts? Location (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am using an old book published in 1903 as a source for an article I am working at. The book is released in full view, plain text and PDF at Google book. May I just copy the text to the article, or I still should re-write it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mbz1. You can use the text as it is public domain when it is that old. You might find the text at the Internet Archive too, which I find is sometimes easier to work from that Google Books. You can note this in the edit summary. Best to rewrite though, as the language might be a bit quaint! I can give a hand on tweaking the wording, if you like. Fences&Windows 23:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it is very kind of you to offer me your help. I will put the article in my user space (it is a bran new article), and will let you know, when it is ready. There will be few old Google books used. For me of course it is much easier just to copy the text from the books than re-write it. I will add you to my DYK nomination of course. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the very first contribution of user MUCHERS22 How Epeefleche could have deleted anything of his "adds", if his post at Epeefleche's talk page was the very first contribution of supposedly bran new user. Maybe a sock? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that and assumed they'd edited as an IP then registered, but I will dig into it. Fences&Windows 01:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:83.252.62.192. Not really socking, I think they've just edited logged out since registering as a n00b mistake, and there was no block evasion. Fences&Windows 01:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
He just will not let it go . Best--Mbz1 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
They were warned, they been blocked for another month. Fences&Windows 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think User:83.250.140.134 is the same guy? At least this edit looks wrong. Recent edits, all similar: . Similar earlier edits: , and his other earlier edits were similar but less closely identical. Or do such hunts continue without end? Art LaPella (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We're vulnerable to such sneaky vandalism because much of this isn't cited, and it's quite hard to verify record sales. I've blocked them. Fences&Windows 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Geolocation is totally different, so unless using proxies this isn't the same editor. Fences&Windows 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Governments_of_Australia is quite disconcerting - it seems to ignore the fact that there are states, federal government, and cabinets/ministries - are you sure you created a correct category in line with pre-existing categories? - cheers SatuSuro 02:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Disconcerting", eh? Are you sure you know why you're objecting to this category? Is it the existence, or just the name? And what on earth is a "correct category in line with pre-existing categories"? I'd suggest you explain yourself a little better. Fences&Windows 02:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
OK sense of humour low, fair enough - the Australian elections are on - and the possibility of outsiders/non involved creating a general category that doesnt fit pre-existing category strucutre is quite high - did you mean to include which of the above mentioned - state, federal, cabinets/ministries or what? It would be simply a matter of courtesy as it stands it is ambiguous without qualification (either in title or in text inside the page) - it can mean up to 5 different things - cheers SatuSuro 02:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Australian project used to have a diligent category gnome who would follow through all this sort of thing with either text to clarify or to check such things - he has long dissappeared (rip longhair I say) - SatuSuro 03:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Done - Text in category place to clarify issue - sorry to have bothered you - cheers - SatuSuro 03:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
He who could probably explain it all best (Australian governments... hmmmm) - the Oz-straylian cultural attache Les Patterson is probably either totally senile, in a nursing home or a drunks dive in lower brisbane - but he is sorely missed - the vategory is further understood (vategory, now more slippage and the vasectomy comes to mined) - in the further malaise of the whole WP politics realm - as I said this am to fellow west oz ed orderinchaos - going into the wp politics projectcategory page looks like a first word war carnage scene - I am sure blood must have been spilled somewhere over some of that... if all this doesnt compute - even jimmy wales needed to cosult wkitionary to undestand an offline message from self - so you are in esteemed (?) company SatuSuro 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not ever feel a need to apologise to editors such as self with over 5 years and 50,000 edits - we have seen it all - unfortunately:| SatuSuro 13:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Mind you I have even seem one of the more amusing 100k editors blocked briefly recently - so I am probably a bit off the mark there - we do need to keep it all civil:| SatuSuro 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, vague categories don't help much, they fill up with clutter. Was that 100k editor Dr Blofeld? Fences&Windows 13:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC) he is online at this moment - yes:| omgwd didnt realise toolserver puts him up in the 300k - oh dear how behind the times I am indeed am SatuSuro 14:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The claim that Leopold copied seven paragraphs verbatim from Salon without attribution is totally false and anyone who accesses the article via Lexis Nexis will see that. That's getting into areas of defamation. There were three attributions to the FT in that article and Leopold made a point of saying, "Why would I attribute the FT only to pass elements of the same article off as my own." I'd like to see where the user Yworo who is making these edits can back up that seven paragraphs were used without attribution. Moreover, Leopold worked at the Los Angeles Times as a reporter and a city editor for 14 months before helping the Times start its Our Times supplement where he was editor. His bio on The Public Record does not say what you claim it says. And moreover, if Wikipedia going to rely so heavily on Salon then you might as well flesh out the entire story and include the claims from leopold that Kerry Lauerman told him he was under pressure from the White House and that Paul Krguman told Leopold he was a "lightning rod" and had to take a "hit" for the Times. That would only make this fair and balanced and neutral.
This is getting out of hand and accusing me of a conflict of interest because I am weighing in is a red herring and frankly BS> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any timeby removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
As you see, while there are pending changes, even your edits are marked as pending as will not take effect without approval. Yworo (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but the pending changes don't seem to able to be approved separately while there are multiple pending changes. If I or someone approve yours, then we automatically have to approve the IP's edits. Is this really how pending changes review is supposed to work. It seems really broken. Especially if disapproving a pending change leads another editor to threaten to report me for edit warring! Yworo (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think pending changes sucks too, but you were edit warring. If the change doesn't fall into the scope of reviewing, which is to keep out vandalism, BLP violations, and other obviously inappropriate content, then you are making a content decision when undoing an edit. That this was the case is clear in your edit summaries. Fences&Windows 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does this article continue to get more negative each time something is added to balance it out and try to present it as more neutral. Case in point, editor Yworo adds information about Leopold that is patently unverifiable in the career section. The editor is relying entirely on the Washington Post story. And that material is based on information from a book that was never published. It's unverifiable. Can I ask why you are consistently inserting negative material into this article? Leopold was not fired from the LA Times. Nor was he fired from Dow Jones. This is material that is patently false. What is going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy McDaniels (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has tags on it calling into question the neutrality and calling on contributors to improve it. I did that. And as soon as I did that user Yworo came in to add negative material. Seems to be malicious. We're not going to get anywhere on improving this if each time something is added another person comes in to add negative material. How to proceed?Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are the IP editor, please be upfront about this. What you need to do to balance this is find further in-depth coverage of Leopold, not snippets cherry-picked from obscure sources. Articles that actually discuss Leopold, not mention him in passing. The Washington Post article is actually about Leopold, and we have no particular reason to believe what you say about it with providing some proof (you are not a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned; the Post is). Lots of people have written negative things about Leopold, so it's hardly surprising that our article reflects that, is it? Fences&Windows 11:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You just blocked an IP editor for edit warring at Jason Leopold. It takes two to edit war, so are you also going to block User:Yworo? I cannot as I've recently edited the article, but if I were uninvolved I would block them. Fences&Windows 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Yes, if I were just talking about this edit war, then I would have blocked Yworo for edit-warring. However, it was really the IP's history, combined with his recent actions, that has been a problem. Notice the block was primarily for disruptive editing, not edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I can see the distinction. I just don't think it's only the IP who is in the wrong here. Editors on that article seem to think they have carte blanche to write negatively about Leopold, and aren't making any effort to seek neutrality. Fences&Windows 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you take another look at FinnDiesel(talk·contribs) please? He's back continuing the exact same revert-war on Attila the Hun, first as his known sock IP 212.156.124.146(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and then with his account, immediately after expiry of his block. And his latest postings on his talk page show he still hasn't understood a thing. This is a truly hopeless case. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that is his IP sock? It's pretty likely, but I'd like to see the evidence all the same. Two reverts isn't quite an edit war yet, so I'm going to hold off any action for now, but you can definitely warn them. Fences&Windows 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
About the IP: One of F.D.'s IPs is known from this. The 212.* IP, from the same ISP and country, shows the same behaviour. All reverts made by 212.* on 27 July and on 11 August were following identical edits by F.D. or by F.D.'s 195.* IP (, , ). Here the 212.* IP attempts to solicit help for the Attila edit war from another Turkish contributor, in Turkish, just like F.D. did on several other issues. (It's also a personal attack. Translation: "Hi Takabeg, on the Attila page we need your help. There is an attempt to remove all of Attila's images. The person who does it is some racist guy who was previously blocked. He got the help of some more people. Thanks.") Then, in a follow-up explanation , F.D. himself refers back to this request in the first person singular: "Richard Keatinge is trying to remove the images. I asked for your help because you know something about Turkish history. What these people are doing is overt anti-Turkish hostility. They have no respect for anything in Turkish history. I'd be glad if you could help. Regards." [Note, btw, that Takabeg's response is unobjectionable; there's no blame on him.]. – About two edits not being an edit war, it's not just the edits in themselves, it's this whole "coming-back-from-a-block-having-learned-absolutely-nothing-and-plunging-right-back-into-the-same-revert-war" thing. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: It's now getting more bizarre. Now the 212 IP has begun to explicitly sign its edits as "Finn Diesel" . In doing so it is mimicking a pattern used earlier by 79.191.101.61(talk·contribs·WHOIS). That, however, had been a joe-job by an unrelated malicious troll, banned Wikinger(talk·contribs). 212 back on 27 July was certainly not Wikinger (W. doesn't know Turkish and doesn't actually care about Turkish history articles, except to enjoy the confusion caused by his impersonation stunts.) So, why the 212 IP is now behaving as if they were pretending to be Wikinger pretending to be Finn Diesel, is really beyond me. Perhaps it is in fact Finn Diesel pretending to be Wikinger pretending to be Finn Diesel. Or it is a meatpuppet of Finn Diesel pretending to operate a joe-job against Finn Diesel by pretending to be Wikinger pretending to be Finn Diesel. (You still with me?;-) Or it is in fact Wikinger having just found out that the 212 is an open proxy (but I can't verify that it is.) Fut.Perf.☼ 07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 2: on reflection, I've blocked the 212 IP, for now. Either the IP is F.D., then F.D. was socking with it, or it is not F.D., then whoever is controlling it has been impersonating; either way, the IP is abusive. I'll leave F.D. himself to you to deal with. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
i use a single pc. Fut.Perf. has personal problems with me, you can check my ip whenever you want.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
everyone can write in turkish by using google translator and "IPs" beginnig with "212" is using by millions of people in the world.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If I have done only 25% of what PA has done for the last few weeks I would have been blocked indefinitely, and I am a valued content contributors with many feature pictures uploaded, and many DYK articles on a different subjects written. PA came here to smear Israel, to write few more conspiracy theories, yes, nothing more than conspiracy theories, and you are helping her in doing that.
You wrote that piece "Australia and New Zealand" for the article. Below is the analysis of the sources you used:
Really? I see only one source, which says that one Israeli and btw 2 Chileans were persecuted. Does that one single source warrants to write subsection? No! You did add that "The scammers have also claimed to be Greek, Argentinian and French.", but why it is still under section "Israelis"?
Israel is a small country, one needs to use a magnifying glass to see her, yet, when one reads main stream media, and wikipedia, for that matter, one could think that 99.99% of all evil in the world is coming out from Israel.
Now, do you really believe that Israelis knew about 9/11, did not warn US, and got away with it? Do you?
You voted against her topic ban, then maybe you'll be so kind to officially topic ban me on that article (I do mean it). It is too dirty, it stinks.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Once you asked me how come Gilabrand got topic banned for that very article. Well, she vandalized, she added to it a piece from this article. But actually what she's done? She added a piece about The great refugee scam (the name of the article from Jerusalem Post) to another article about scam. Why not? OK, maybe she should have written another article about great refugee scam. There's lots of really RS on the subject. Well, if she did write that article, it would have been deleted in 5 minutes, maybe less, and she would have been topic banned anyway. So, why one could write any conspiracy theories about Israel, and be treated as a hero, but not the other way around? Here's why:. Any more questions? --Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Now, do you really believe that Israelis knew about 9/11, did not warn US, and got away with it? Do you?". Sigh. I have never expressed a view on that, so I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I hold this view. My opinion is, frankly, irrelevant. From the sources, the allegations of espionage in this case appear to have little or nothing to do with 9/11, despite the focus of the ADL and various conspiracy theorists on this supposed connection. I did note that other nationalities were involved in the Australia/New Zealand incidents. My summary of the sources may not be perfect and the section title might be better with inverted commas, but all I was trying to do was follow the sources. Nobody else was bothering to lift a finger to find sources, despite complaining that the spying allegations were being given undue weight. Many of Australian and NZ sources do focus on Israelis (e.g. 11 deported in 2009 ) and I should point out that there's an "edit" button on the article. If you want something to really get angry at, check out "What Really Happened" Wikia, and specifically this:. I already knew why Gilabrand got banned for editing that article, and she deserved it as it was WP:POINTy editing. Fences&Windows 22:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, if me or Gila for that matter, would have done .25% of what pa is doing now we would have been banned for good. I was three month topic banned for practically nothing compare to what pa is doing. 3/4 of my blocks were unfair, and I have no difficulties admitting, if one was. Anyway... Sorry I took your time. There's no use. Bye.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Btw, you should spend less time reading political propaganda. Wikipedia has two articles on 1948 Palestinian exodus and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, which have a lot of scholarly sources, and that imbalanced Betar piece conveniently ignores events like the Deir Yassin massacre. We also have Palestinian refugee and Palestinian right of return. Try to write Palestinian refugee scam and it'll get blitzed as an obvious POV fork. You should know better than to even suggest it, don't be childish. I've seen plenty of editors from both sides of this dispute banned, you may be experiencing confirmation bias. Fences&Windows 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. This won't be any fun. Reluctantly certified. Fences&Windows 03:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Oded Brigade insignia.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fences and Windows! Firstly, the IDF is planning to redesignate some modern units as the 1948 units, even those that were entirely disbanded (e.g. Etzioni Brigade). In any case, I believe that I already have a few sources about Oded after 1956, there just isn't enough time to write about it, unfortunately. If you know someone who can edit Wikipedia and knows Hebrew (and has spare time), feel free to refer them to me and I will send some materials. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk) 15:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, same names but not a continuation. That could be confusing! I don't know any Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians well, and this isn't really a priority for me; I only came across it by clicking "Random page" and wondering what I could dig up about the unit. Anyway, thanks for adding the better insignia. Fences&Windows 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to know who I can appeal to about the harassment and threats I have been subjected to by editor Yworo. The Jason Leopold article is a mess. I have spent nearly a week trying to improve it as can be seen on my edit history. Yworo and others have reverted my edits time and again and have made baseless claims and threats. Please look at my edit history to see what has been changed. The bottom line is this article is highly flawed, continues to be a major subject of controversy for Wikipedia, and it has tags asking the community to help improve it which I have been doing. It is simply unfair and wrong that my work, which includes links as you can see, has been erased and that I have been threatened when I work to put it back in and correct an error or two. I would be happy to be removed from editing this article if that also applied to Yworo and a slew of others whose mission for the past four years has been to write a negative and biased article without regard for context or neutrality.
I am following wiki's guidelines and policies and I am tired of being accused of edit warring when it is Yworo who clearly, based on his/her edit history, who is engaging in this behavior. Please help or please advise me who I can register a complaint with. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Jason Jimmy is actually repeatedly inserting material which cannot be verified in the source cited. The latest version of the sentence being inserted is "The author of the Washington Post story, where both claims appeared, is Howard Kurtz, who was criticized in Leopold's book." with the edit comment "added kurtz. It's relevant that the author of the story is also featured in the book by his own admission. Readers deserve to know that". However, the citation used is "Kurtz, Howard. "Subject's Challenge Derails Reporter's Book Project". Washington Post. March 9, 2005. Retrieved July 29, 2010." Nowhere in this article does Kurtz say the he was mentioned in Leopold's book. In fact, he doesn't even say he that he's read it. I've repeatedly asked Jimmy to clarify and provide the relevant quote, but instead he does this. I am still waiting for the supporting quote. As for threatening, he's broken 3RR and I'm graciously not reporting it, because I don't think he really understands it. I've asked him to thoroughly read the edit warring policy, but it's clear that he hasn't bothered. Yworo (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, Yworo is accusing me of being Jason Leopold. He offers up no evidence. Apparently, someone who is passionate about something is automatically deemed to be the subject. This false allegation only serves to underscore my point that this person should not be involved in editing this article. Yworo, since you're supposed to be working in the world of facts and sources, find a source that proves I'm Jason Leopold. Until then, keep your claims to yourself. I am using my real name for transparency. Should I accuse you of being Howard Kurtz maybe?
And as I said on my own talk page, I went to Amazon.com and looked inside Leopold's book using the "look inside" feature and found the Kurtz reference, which is criticism. I then have been working to find a source to cite that has this material. I've read the edit warring and I am just stunned that Yworo appears to have difficulty adhering to his own advice, which can be proven by looking at the edit history and the comments he/she has left on the talk page and my talk page. Yworo's comments are not that of an unbiased editor but rather someone who have a personal issue. Accusing me of being the subject of the article is a perfect example. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like, if possible, Fences&Windows to read the Kurtz story and see if he can offer his take on what Kurtz does and doesn't say. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Everybody else editing the article has the same opinion about who you are. Multiple editors have advised you to stop editing your own article. You are completely transparent. Plus, you never said prior to this that you used Amazon "look inside". What's in News Junkie is irrelevant. What was in Off the Record is what's relevant, and whether Kurtz was mentioned in it and whether he read it prior to writing his article. That's what you've been claiming, and it's not supported anywhere. Yworo (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Right. Key word being "opinion." You stated it as fact. As someone who edits articles on wikipedia you should know better. Have any hard evidence? No. You don't. So refrain from making accusations that you cannot back up with facts or documentary proof. You seem to know a lot about Off the Record and News Junkie and are making conclusions that are absolutely unsupported by facts. Why are you getting your panties in a twist over this? You are very emotional. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Now why did you self revert if you're so self righteous in your belief?
(cur | prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo) [automatically accepted]Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
And a warning to you to never accuse me of being Jason Leopold again unless you have documentary evidence to back up your claims. I am sick of being accused of being the person whose article I am actually trying to improve as if there are no people on the planet who would want to do so. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, your behavior, and how immature it is, only underscores your bias and is evidence of why you should not be allowed to edit. How dare you make an accusation against me of being Jason Leopold without offering a shred of proof. Who the hell do you think you are?Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An established and trusted editor, see my user page. Who do you think you are? You know what the funny thing about pretending to be somebody else is? You can never tell whether you've gotten it right. Ha ha ha! Yworo (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you're a biased editor. And the article has been tagged as a result of those edits, which only seem to get worse. In my one week of editing I've managed to find numerous examples of material to provide balance to this article and to expand it. It's clear that based on your edits you have an agenda. Moreover, your "ha ha ha" proves my point that you're immature. That's a real display of professionalism from someone who is supposedly a trusted editor. So now you've engaged in personal attacks against me in addition to the threats and harassment. Tell me again why you should be trusted to edit this in an unbiased and neutral fashion? Again, you simply make false uncorroborated claims against me and I am sick of your intimidation tactics. For the last time, stop. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not a biased editor. I simply insist that your sources actually support your text and that the article rely primarily on what the reliable sources such as The Washington Post say and not on unreliable fluff. Tell me again why someone such as yourself with an obvious conflict of interest is still editing the article rather than making suggestions on the talk page as recommended by policy? Yworo (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're at it, tell me why you're a single-purpose account if you're so interested in improving Wikipedia? Why is it that you're not improving other articles? Yworo (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I never said I was interested in improving wikipedia. Just this article. Which I have the right to do.
Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is fun. Jimmy, you started your editing at Wikipedia by saying you were Jason Leopold's lawyer to try to scare others into letting you edit how you wanted. You backed down from that ridiculous legal threat, but all you've done is edit this article and post endlessly about it on various noticeboards and talk pages. People don't take single-purpose accounts very seriously around here, and it's hardly a stretch to assert that you have some connection to Leopold - someone unconnected would simply not care this much about someone most of the world seems happy to bad mouth (e.g. the Columbia Journalism Review calls him a "serial fabulist". Funnily enough someone claiming to be Leopold's attorney also turned up making empty threats at that article, surely a coincidence?). I did read that Washington Post article before and it's not very flattering for Leopold, but it is a reliable source. Your opinion that it was sour grapes is just your opinion, and your personal opinion is worthless when we consider how to edit articles. My opinion is also worthless: all that matters is what sources say. Get used to this, or you'd be better off not editing Wikipedia at all, and anyway you're doing everything in just the right way to end up indefinitely blocked. Frankly, your constant protests about bias are wearing thin, and unless and until you can provide some good, independent sources that present Leopold in another light, I'm going to ignore you. I no longer have any interest in trying to improve that article; I wash my hands of it. Fences&Windows 21:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting a user conduct RfC at User:Yworo/draft. I've never done one of these before. I'll understand if you don't participate, but you are welcome to help should you choose to do so. Sorry for dragging this out on your talk page.... I know better. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll sit this one out, I'm tired of the whole thing. I have just had a read of Joe Lauria's opinion of Leopold though, makes interesting reading. Fences&Windows 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Really interesting read, that. Good thing he can't likewise give fake IP addresses.:-) Yworo (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Marc Ash, who is truthout's executive director, has a response to Joe Lauria that is out there on the internets too. Interesting that this all appears in the Washington Post. All revolves around Karl Rove.
And if you look on the talk page you will see a letter to CJR about defamation and libel regarding their article on Leopold.
Fine if you want to attack me. But it doesn't change the fact that this article is in need of improvement and no one is attempting to do that. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
But now this has turned personal and not focusing on the issues I raised. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I simply do not understand why the article and improving it is not the focus. Amazed that this has turned into a personal attack against me. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You're the focus because the issues you raise are increasingly fatuous. "if you look on the talk page you will see a letter to CJR about defamation and libel regarding their article on Leopold." So what? That's a letter by Leopold and his lawyer(?), which he and his sockpuppets spammed over half the blogosphere. All that tells us is that Leopold doesn't like people criticising him. A letter is a letter; did he follow up with a legal case, or was it just a toothless threat? Mark Ash, as Leopold's employer, is not an independent source. Leopold got slammed over that "Rove is going to be indicted" story by others too. Sorry, I'm done with this. Please leave me out of your "Leopold is unfairly maligned" campaign, whoever you are. Fences&Windows 13:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC
Having watched this as a voyeur I thought I would chime in with the one thing I do know. The letter Leopold/his attorney sent to CJR is authentic and CJR settled with Leopold. The writer of the article was dismissed afterwards. I called up the law office listed there. And I called CJR, who wouldn't comment (but one of their interns did). FWIW
That's nice, Mr-happens-to-be-watching-and-also-can't-do-indents. For a voyeur you sure did put a lot of effort in by ringing up law firms. The CJR article is still live (odd if they lost a lawsuit), and the correction seems pretty minor: "Editor’s Note: Initially this post mistakenly attributed certain statements made by Mark Ash, Jason Leopold’s editor, to Leopold himself. The attribution has since been corrected." Not quite the massive climbdown that Leopold claims. Defend yourself by attacking others, what a noble tactic. Fences&Windows 18:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, that looks good enough to pass GNG to me. Since he won't make Arsenal's 25 for the Premiership he'll almost certainly go out on loan somewhere in the FL, which'll fix the objection of ATHLETE anyway. Black Kite (t)(c) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 2,505 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.
Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Can I just ask why you merged Frankpledge into Frith-borh, with edits including this one, rather than the other way around? I ask because discussion at Frankpledge, in which I was involved, seemed, eventually, to point in the opposite direction- did you see that, or did I miss something? And, maybe you plan to deal with this, but surely Talk:Frankpledge should've been merged too- or, as I would have expected, the other way around! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I missed it, sorry. I get so used to seeing stale merge notices... I can merge it back the other way. Fences&Windows 23:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, no worries- stale notices of any sort have that effect on me too! Yes, I think merging back the other way would be best in the circumstances, especially as all that's on Frith-borh's talk page for merging right now is a template and categories! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
...and relax!:-) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If an editor fails to comply with the following, can they be sanctioned? Or is it not a requirement/policy?
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}
* Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
* For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|File:First_file.ext|File:Second_file.ext|File:Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
as someone recently didn't with two of my uploads. Exxolon (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with conventions at FFD, but I would have thought that repeatedly not informing uploaders of deletion would be disruptive, if they'd been warned and continued not informing regardless. Fences&Windows 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I know you don't want to be involved in this, but I thought you should know that Jimmy McDaniels has cherry-picked things you have said in the past to imply your continued support in his response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Sorry to pull you in like that, but I didn't think you'd want yo be misrepresented. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi F and W, I have added this death, do you think it is a strong enough cite? Laurence_GardnerOff2riorob (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do need to be careful about prematurely declaring people to be dead, but I think it's OK. I don't think there's any question that the site is Gardner. That message was posted by Karen Lyster, who has worked with Gardner and runs his website. Also see . I wouldn't generally use such sites as sources, but as they knew Gardner it's likely that their reporting of his death is accurate. Fences&Windows 11:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes. Sadly it is clearly correct. Thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I opened a duplicate version of yours about a minute after you did. Could you close with a link towards the first? Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Twinkle doesn't notice if there's already an AfD open for an article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the duplicate AfD nomination from Suppression towards Islam, and now you've removed the other one, so there's no nomination there at all. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it. Yes, how odd. Might need to check on that. Perhaps it's just so rare for that to happen that they didn't think to include a check? Fences&Windows 23:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on the Web Fiction article. I'd tried to piece it into something coherent from the previously existing mess a few months before, and am glad someone capable started cleaning it up! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irkdesu (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Fences, I saw your comment at User talk:Farrukh38; there's a thread on ANI regarding the editor's work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Aye, I went to their page from that thread. I figured a comment directly to the editor would be better than commenting at AN/I. Fences&Windows 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter. Message added 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any timeby removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The RaptorYou rang?, or SMasters (Talk).
On 21 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lebanese fossils, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't know why, but your userpage is currently included at CAT:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Weird. It's not now. I checked for transclusion issues, couldn't spot anything. Fences&Windows 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for your comments about the rating: on a second look it has all the characteristics of a B class article so I have improved the rating.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering the rating. I was angling for C class, so B class is a bonus. Fences&Windows 21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't it match the Providence Journal article? I'll bet that was where the Mail journalist cribbed that article from. Fences&Windows 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes very similar indeed, actually the mail is dated two or three days earlier. n the article it says, She submitted a birth certificate said to give Sinclair’s Sept. 6, 1954 birth date, as well as a Florida driver’s license issued in September. - that says quite strongly to me that her DOB is according to her birth cert and Florida license - September 6, 2010. 1954 - Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the MoS article was published on 21 August, the Providence Journal article on 24 July. Her d.o.b is 6 Sept 1954. Fences&Windows 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, excuse my missie. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 138.162.8.58 (talk) based on my ANI request]. You noted that Cirt had blocked one, the x.57 IP for the same person. There was a third one I'd researched/documented in that ANI post, too, quacking loudly, viz. 74.248.43.156. But no vandalism there, so far, just the vote-stacking at AfD, so I can just keep an eye on that one if you don't want to block that, too. Thanks again, I appreciate your help, a lot. Oh, and thanks for saying "for a fortnight", too. Fortnight!! Fortnight!! ( I love that word. ) Best, –OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know their editing pattern well enough to know if this is the same editor. Keep an eye on them. Fences&Windows 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious becuase you seem to have a nice one. I am having a hard time figuring out how you stylize your signature into your liking. This is how I want it to look like. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Under "My preferences", "User profile", there is a box for the sig that takes Wiki markup. Mine contains [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]].
I don't get your use of the cursor:move markup, I'd advise against that as it is meaningless and would just confuse people. Also, the use of the three 7s for different links is too fiddly to be user friendly. And what do those symbols mean? I'd remove them as they add clutter. Try †↔♥Jhenderson777<span style="color:aqua;">†↔♥</span>[[User:Jhenderson777|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:red">Jhenderson</span>]]<sup>'''[[User talk:Jhenderson777|<span style="color:Blue;">777</span>]]'''</sup> Fences&Windows 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was it but every time I try to do that one it doesn't work. It shows every thing I put in as one whole link. There's something I am missing. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I just tested it by replacing my sig with that code, and it works fine. Copy and paste it exactly as I wrote it. Fences&Windows 22:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I figured it out. I just didn't check treat it like a Wikimarkup. I am not 100% sure about the signature though. I might do some remodifications with the signature. Jhenderson777 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure. So long as there's no images, no external links, nothing flashing or too big, nothing illegible, and nothing deceptive, you can play around quite a lot. But remember, less is more. Fences&Windows 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I really appreciate it. There's one more thing though when I change each individual 7's color I mess it up. Jhenderson777 00:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The signature subpage shows how I did it and want it to look. Jhenderson777 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Again I thank you for your help. What do you think? – Jhenderson777 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not bad. Btw, I finally figured out what "†↔♥" means: "Christ is love", right? Fences&Windows 22:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah pretty much. Congratulations on figuring that one out! As you can see from my signature I did change it again. Cursive wasn't working for me as much as I hoped and since I had to choose between the font and this border so I just chose the border. Too bad there is a limit on what you can put on the signature. But still I couldn't figured it out with you. If you ever look at my user page and talk page and even inside them in the edit notice you would know I like to decorate. Jhenderson777 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain this further? I have started or contributed to numerous articles about female GIs. I uploaded the image Jessica Lynch's friend File:Lori Piestewa.jpg, and have made significant contributions to several other GIs regarded as heroes. Tonight I started an article about Paula A. Coughlin, after looking for RS that linked Dickinson to the kid glove treatment senior officers receive during the tailhook scandal.
I may never come across those RS, or any other reference that merits expanding the Dickinson article enough to justify moving it to article space. But that draft contains valuable references that may fit in other articles.
It is protected from casual view by a __NOINDEX__. So is there a reason why I shouldn't keep it, as-is, where I can cannibalize its references? Geo Swan (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"I have started or contributed to numerous articles about female GIs." So what? That's totally irrelevant, this is not about how wonderful you are or are not as an editor. However, Paula A. Coughlin would be better merged into Tailhook scandal, as it's a pseudo-biography. If you're not planning to have an article on Dickinson, you shouldn't keep a permadraft, see WP:FAKEARTICLE. All pages are public, noindexed or otherwise. Keep the wikicode in a text file on your computer. Fences&Windows 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you made some edits yourself to the Paula Coughlin article. If she had only been a whistleblower, and had promptly dropped back into obscurity, I would agree she was a blp1e, and could be adequately covered in the tailhook article. But, instead:
she became a prominent poster-child for reform in the US military;
she was personally chewed out by the Sec Def;
the POTUS cried over her story when she met him;
she was awarded millions of dollars in damages;
she was the subject of a well reviewed biopic;
she became a millionaire yoga entrepeneur.
I suggest any one of these additional events makes her a blp2e, not subject to blp1e.
I mentioned the other biographies I have written because I have been routinely and unfairly slandered as anti-US and anti-military, as in this personal attack. In fact I am just as likely to start an article about a GI who is a notable hero as one who is notable coward or criminal.
WRT WP:FAKEARTICLE. I trimmed back the content of USER:Geo Swan/Rebecca C. Dickinson to the point It is just a list of references -- and I don't think it looks like an article. If I were to copy the current contents to a text file I lose all the history. I've trimmed this down to the point that there is enough info to remind me why I made notes about her, but not enough for it look like a fake article. If I come across additional WP:RS, I can puff it back up, add the new material, think about whether it looks ready to move to article space, and if I decide it does not I can revert to the state I left it in today.
What do I think could merit moving this to article space? Well, if WP:RS were published that compared Dickinson's treatment at USN hands to those involved in tailhook or other sex related scandals I think that could merit it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Aye, I figured it's best to have the article tell us a little more about her other than just retelling the Tailhook story. Not sure that she's a notable yoga instructor. Fences&Windows 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why should I apologise to user who constantly accusing me of some dirt that I didn't do? and thing it is personal attacks, Lionking contributed to wiki may be 2-3 times compared to my 4000 and yet you still think, I am the guilty party in here. You should deal with users like Lida Vorig, who constantly argues Azeri references are not right, while armenians are totally fine. Like in here--NovaSkola (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mubariz_Ibrahimov
Then what you must do if you see good faith edits?--NovaSkola (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You talk to the editors involved, and if you must revert, you don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, it appears you're correct! I'm not 100% sure what happened there, but it looks like I made an inadvertent mistake. Glad you caught that, thank you. - Vianello (Talk) 03:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has been recreated and made into a redirect to Karrar (UCAV). Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. - Vianello (Talk) 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you weighed in briefly at Chiropractic and there is now a mediation. You're not named as an involved party, but since the majority of participants tend to take one side of the argument, I thought you might want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/ChiropracticOcaasi (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks more like an RfC on QuackGuru than a serious attempt at mediation. Attempts to "neutralise" systematic reviews using opinions from chiropracters on websites deserve to be removed. I'll pass. Fences&Windows 10:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
QG is the editor who most prominently asserts policy positions and claims to know what is correct for the article, so the tendency has been to focus on him. The reason I asked for your opinion was due to the imbalance between QG and those who have been in debates with him.
If you can weigh in on policy issues themselves, that would be helpful, too. The opinions of "chiropractors on websites" do deserve to be removed; the question is whether that category is being applied over-broadly, to exclude sources which are reliable but not given enough weight (and whether sources currently used are being given more weight than they should). I think that requires a nuanced debate (which has been difficult given QG's particular position on policy).
This field is also somewhat different than others, because the vast majority of systematic research has been conducted by one researcher (E. Ernst). Though as you pointed out, he is not alone, he is overwhelmingly at the center of the push towards evidence-based medicine in chiropractic and the criticism against spinal manipulation in general. The sources that 'dispute' or qualify him involve the WHO, literature reviews from Chiropractic colleges, and general research that addresses the urgent need for more reliable data and research. In light of the tension between Ernst's precautionary approach and the vast current use of Chiropractors, there is bound to be schisms and resistance, particularly to findings which basically indict an entire profession. Though the mantra that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence usually applies to those pushing techniques outside of medicine, I believe it also applies to researchers attempting to contravene considerably long-standing practices where the amount of variety and education is highly variable. For example, Ernst's studies overwhelmingly research the technique of spinal manipulation rather than Chiropractic as a profession. Yet Ernst's conclusions are overwhelmingly used to criticize Chiropractic itself.
Anyway, if you're still not interested, that's no big deal. But I think more outside views would be helpful. Ocaasi (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
...is now at ANI asking for Twinkle restoration. As you removed it, you may wish to comment there. Exxolon (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize that it is an alternative spelling, but when there are 6 or so other spellings of the word closely located in the article, it looks sloppy and unprofessional to have two different spellings right in the midst of them. Consistency! As an administrator and highly regarded as I see in your userboxes, I'm surprised you didn't realize that. 76.250.232.91 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa(Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi F&W, thank you for your really kind message. I have thought about it some before, and it's something I would be interested in generally speaking as I think I could contribute a lot here in that capacity, but I think I'd like to get a little bit more experience with BLPs and practical application of policy under my belt first, as that seems to be one of the areas of conflict in which administrators intercede a lot. Perhaps I could take you up on it in a couple of months or thereabouts? Again, thanks very much. —e. ripley\talk 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Are there some reliabledeath reports here, AP are reporting it and quoting the subjects spokesperson, looks strong enough to me, what do you think about dropping the protection to semi? Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks F and W. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Tone is apparently on Wikibreak. Could you userfy Michael W. Dean to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Michael W. Dean? He's the author of $30 Film School, and while working to improve THAT userfied article, I came across a lot about this guy in multiple reliable sourses.... And, in wondering why his article was gone, I found the AFD discussion... which led me to believe that the article was unfortunately SO poorly written by its newb author, that she was unable to convince anyone, even with the sources she offered, that it was salvagable. Her talk page reflects her "warm welcome" to Wikipedia and its processes. Sad. I dropped her a line... just in case... but she seems to have left the project after that. It may require complete rewrite, but I'm hoping the article and its "inline cites" might have enough with which to begin. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I was too slow on the draw and was beaten to it. Good luck reworking it. Fences&Windows 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. And now in actually looking at it, I see I have my work cut out for me. I think that as he does get coverage, he meets WP:GNG... and as his films and books are reviewed, he also meets WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD suggests that if Tone is not back, a DRV might be required to prevent a G4 speedy,, but my own thought is that Tone's close was not flawed... as he simply acted per the consensus toward the then-existing article. I had figured to do what I could to address concrns brought forth at the AFD, and then send it to incubation for additional collaborative effort by others and then an administrative evaluation before possible retun to mainspace. It'd still be out of mainspace out of respect for the AFD deletion, so this would not be an end run around the AFD deletion... but rather the use of process to see if something properly improved might be re-evaluated to see if it might properly serve the project. If it does merit a return, the AFD is born out. If it is seen to merit a return, it simply means that the system works and the project benefits. And trust what will be sent to incubation will only be my best. Fingers crossed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
DRV isn't required to recreate an article or move it back into articlespace if further coverage and content has been included, G4 only applies if it's basically the same. It's worth checking with the deleting admin first so they don't kneejerk delete it when that happens. Fences&Windows 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well... it may be similar, but now expanded and with more citations. The article was deleted and userfied to me last year because the film had not yet been released and the production by itself did not rate being an exception to NFF. Now that it has finally been released, it is getting a moderate critical response and some decent genre reviews. But yes... I will check with the closer after it is cleaned up and sourced. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
Participation report — We have 71 participants in the September drive. 95 people signed up for the July drive, and in May we had 36.
Progress report — We have been making solid progress in eliminating the 2008 articles from the backlog so far. If we continue to focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Overall volumes are lower than expected though, with nearly a thousand articles yet to be done if we are to meet our overall target. If you have not yet participated in the drive, we recommend you do so. If each person who signed up edits one article per day from now till the end of the month we can eliminate another 1,065 articles from the backlog. All contributions are appreciated.
Announcement: credit for 10k+ articles — Participants editing a 10k word article may claim credit for two 5k+ articles on the leaderboard. Those that edit a 15k word article may claim credit for three. Regardless, the article is still counted as a single article in the tallies.
Reminder — Articles from the Requests page can be included in your tally, even if they do not have a copy edit tag. This is a great place to go if you are interested in finding a higher quality article to work on.
The article Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention has no references. It has one link, to the business’ own webpage. I happened upon this page when I ran across edits by User 24.112.152.178, which edits were almost exclusively additions to a celebrity’s page or old TV show/movie and concerned the appearance by the celebrity at this particular convention (where attendees pay the celebrities for signatures), or the movie/TV show being discussed at the convention, and always included a link to the Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention’s Wikipage, a short page that includes a prominent section about the upcoming convention later this month, expected attendees, planned topics, etc.
The edits of User 24.112.152.178 struck me as spam/promotion of the convention; rather than a noteworthy event connected to a celebrity/show, and I removed those edits to the affected pages. I wonder if the Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention article itself is nothing more than additional advertising space for the convention, that is, in addition to the webpage that this business already maintains on the web and links to from its Wikipage. The informaion given in the article about the last 4 years of the convention is the same information given on the business' webpage; likewise as to the planned convention this month.
I came to your talk page as I noted that you posted an issue to the proper board after someone asked you to look into something else, and I wondered that, if you thought there was a legitimate question as to whether this were a proper article or just promotion/advertisement, you might be able to post the issue to the appropriate board. If you do not consider it a legitimate question as to this particular Wikipage, that’s enough of an answer for me. Thank you.75.4.193.237 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I've nominated it for deletion. You could do so yourself if you registered for an account, you know. Fences&Windows 21:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you're not edit warring. Yes, you're an involved experienced editor. So perhaps you could exercise your editing tools to take the article to AFD, where this challenged Proposed Deletion should be, and where the warring editors all know it should be (because they're discussing it on the talk pages as they edit war!), rather than having an edit war over repeatedly reinstating a proposed deletion notice after it has been contested. I've handed out two warnings. I'd do more than just warn, but I've just started the 'bot run for Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo and am somewhat occupied. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh man, why do editors on this topic always have to squabble? I wish I'd just taken it to AfD in the first place. It is now at AfD. Fences&Windows 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
oh, c'mon, is that real? I've never heard that term before. . My understanding was that meat-puppet was a backhanded reference to sock-puppet - same idea of something that looks like a separate entity while being controlled by a hidden hand, except it's made out of flesh rather than sock material. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There was a band called Meat Puppets: "'Meat Puppet' is a multi-meaning joke — it can be religious, it can be dirty, it can be political ... A Meat Puppet," he concludes, "is a human being."Penn and Teller used "meat puppet" in the late 80s, from a cameraman who coined it to refer to "beautiful but vacant people who read the news". (also see here). This 1993 LA Times article says "meat puppet" was coined by William Gibson. It was in Neuromancer, as "an automated doll, whose artificial appearance and deceptive human attributes render it playful but also fearful (grotesque)." I don't know when it took on its current Wikipedia meaning, or from where the name came. Fences&Windows 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for removing the cats, and leaving them at the bottom of the article. I was writing a {{userspace draft}} and got tied up in other things. I am slowly editing it, and then will have it reviewed (though I forget how to get that done, since some people at P:NOV want me to merge articles into it).. Anyways, before I get on a tangant, it happens. --Wolfnix • Talk • 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wolfnix 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}}!
Wolfnix has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protecter forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Just happened to see this notice and on a whim gave the article a quick read. Interesting! How did you come to write about it? It's inspired me to work on Big Rock Candy Mountain, which could use some help. —e. ripley\talk 00:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I love digging into historical details on neglected subjects! I was listening to "Where the Wild Roses Grow" and ended up reading up on murder ballads. I noticed that Cave's song was supposed to be inspired by "Down in the Willow Garden" (that's still not verified), and that an article on another song, "The Knoxville Girl", referred to it too - but we didn't have an article on it. I was intrigued by it having a couple of names, so I started digging. I even shelled out for the article by Wilgus as it was obviously the main reference for this song. Fences&Windows 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock. I'm sure you see my point: that there's a need to get consensus on (1) whether there is a problem, (2) the scale of the problem (is it OK to have short quotes in an article?), and (3) what Bible versions to use on Wikipedia if current practice needs to be changed. The logical place to have that debate is WT:BIBLE, I would think, and if changes are made, a clearly articulated policy on Bible quotations in Wikipedia will be needed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, a centralised discussion is precisely what is needed. How long a quote is too long and whether public domain should be preferred even if we could use quotes from copyrighted translations is the key issue. Fences&Windows 22:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just wondering if you are carrying foward with the review of Marth MacKenzie? We've comp0leted some more tasks for you, just wondering what else you have to suggest. Thanks again so much. =)RAIN..the..ONEHOTLINE 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy. I'll see if I can do more tomorrow. I think it's pretty good overall, btw, but I still need to go through the references to double check that the article faithfully reflects what they, and to complete the copyedit. Some things I've thought of: some of the character summaries e.g. on Yahoo, have details about her early life and why she moved to Summer Bay that could be included. You could also put in how old the character was when she moved to Summer Bay and when she left, to help readers. Also, why is it that her relationship with Jack struck such a chord with fans? Is there any information on that? The article skips over their first marriage. On the issue of wanting cites in the lead, you're right that that's not always required, but it is required if the info doesn't appear elsewhere in the article. For things like dates of first appearance, I think IMDB or some other TV directory would be reliable enough. Fences&Windows 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.
Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Pricetalk 10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Fences, I saw your comment at AfD and was a bit saddened--I had hoped that you would give me more credit than your questions suggested. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a classic trainwreck. You can assert that you searched for sources and considered a merge, and that you really thought about how bundling these articles midway would go, but without any evidence to the contrary I'll stick with my opinion that this was ill-considered. I'm sure you thought it was the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. If you searched for sources for them all, then how come you came up blank when others did find sources? If you considered a merge, why didn't you suggest it as a compromise? I'm by no means an inclusionist, but I believe that the general drive to remove material on highly popular fiction from Wikipedia is far too hot headed. There's a lot of angry young men who are sure that they "doing the right thing" by "purifying" Wikipedia in their battle against inclusionists. A more measured approach would give us a better result - the aim is comprehensive but verified coverage of notable fiction and fictional elements. Deleting too much too fast risks stunting Wikipedia's growth and driving away keen editors into the arms of Wikia. Fences&Windows 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an angry young man, and I am not part of any movement to remove anything from Wikipedia. That I didn't find any references that I deemed reliable or significant is no reason for you to assume that I am of some "delete delete delete" mindset (which, considering what I've been doing here, is a rather silly accusation). You could have seen in the AfD that I said I wasn't opposed to redirects (and I don't have to tell you that that includes a merge also), so I did in fact second that proposal. But mostly, I am a bit baffled that you, without knowing my mind (obviously) or my position in the deletionist vs. inclusionist debate (apparently) would assume that I go around nominating willy-nilly. As long as you don't have evidence for my intentions, you should assume good faith, and that you didn't show me any, and instead accuse me of being somehow an accomplice in some concerted effort to remove fiction stuff, that I am resonspible for an (unproven) stunting of the growth of Wikipedia, that I find sad. I'd like to think that I've created more articles (225) than I've brought to AfD, but I don't feel like counting my AfDs, and I don't think it would matter to you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the old "you disagree with me, so you're not assuming good faith" routine. I'm sure you intended to improve Wikipedia, I disagree that you did. You had enough warning that bundling all those articles would be a mess, but you went ahead anyway, so pardon me for criticising your judgement. And you found no reliable sources at all discussing any of those episodes of House? Hmm. Fences&Windows 10:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
Greetings from the Guild of Copy EditorsSeptember 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated! Several of our top editors were called away to real life concerns during the month (be careful out there, people!). This meant that once again, we did not meet all our lofty targets, but we did come close.
Stats
Out of 76 registered editors, 45 actively participated.
We nearly wiped out the 2008 articles from the backlog—there were only 13 remaining when the drive closed.
We reduced the backlog by 725 articles (11.5%), so it was another successful drive.
A total of 59 barnstars will be awarded to 40 editors—well done, and congratulations to all.
Barnstars
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, you may have earned rollover words, which counted towards this month's barnstars (except for the leaderboard awards). Any unused word credits will be held over for the next drive, as long as you participated in the September drive. Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. Click here to see a list of barnstar winners.
We will be holding our next drive in November. You can sign up here.
A huge "thank you" to all editors who helped clear the backlog and to others who helped out behind-the-scenes. See you at the next drive, and until then, please continue to help us work through the backlog. Happy editing!
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fences and windows. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done - Text in category place to clarify issue - sorry to have bothered you - cheers - SatuSuro 03:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
. My understanding was that meat-puppet was a backhanded reference to sock-puppet - same idea of something that looks like a separate entity while being controlled by a hidden hand, except it's made out of flesh rather than sock material. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
