Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Greetings,

I am a frequent user of Wikipedia since 1st December 2009 when I need to research on people, practices, places and things. I would like to start by sharing my deep appreciation for the great work that others like you and yourself are doing to maintain the quality and accuracy of articles on Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the continuous necessity to review the contents on your pages, I was unpleasantly surprised to see Mr. Rajiv Jain (cinematographer) nominated for deletion from your esteemed pages.

I request you to kindly peruse through what I have enumerated below and then make an informed decision on the way forward on this page and his presence there.

Towards this attempt, I would like to share with you a few reasons why I believe that Mr. Rajiv Jain’s candidature befits his presence on Wikipedia.

1. Below mentioned are a few sources that will point out his contributions to Indian cinema

a. http ://www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

b. http://www.ranker.com/list/movies-with-cinematography-by-rajiv-jain/reference

c. http:// www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

d. http://movie-stars.us/filmography/rajiv%20jain.aspx

e. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1203010/

2. I have edited this page and have removed links to his website, interviews, articles or blog (which some have commented to have been created personally by himself)

3. IMDB (internet Movie Database) is a credible site which enumerates the work of notable contributors and related cinema releases. I request you to kindly credit them with the professional respect and consideration that one would give to honourable peers. While IMDB may not equate to notability or nomination to a celebrity club, it can undoubtedly be considered as the most reliable data base on films and key contributors to the industry

4. As a regular user of Wikipedia, I can assure you of the presence of many other names that would earn lower eligibility to be on the coveted Wikipedia pages. These less than worthy nominations are present from all industries viz; politics, international relations, the corporate world, Bollywood and more importantly, Indian cinematographers. I would of course refrain from being rude enough to mention their names or nominate them for deletion. In the event you do proceed with your decision to do away with Mr. Jain’s presence on your pages, I would certainly ask you to peruse through the following link and proceed with appropriate due diligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_cinematographers

5. I request you to kindly Google about him using ‘RAJEEV JAIN CINEMATOGRAPHER’ as keywords for your search. I assure you that you will be able to read a lot of information about him in the form of write ups, interviews, videos on You tube, his working stills etcetera

6. Mr. Jain has worked with notablable film Producers / Directors like like Aziz Mirza, Chandrakant Kulkarni, Ketan Mehta, Makrand Deshpande, Late Mukul S. Anand, Nitin Chandrakant Desai, Rajiv Rai, Satish Kaushik, Shyam Benegal, Subhash Ghai and Wanuri Kahiu, who are themselves present on Wikipedia.

7. While I have edited his page to only include professional essentials, I would like to point out that the contents on his page were not very different from the content on the Wikipedia pages of other cinematographers

a. I do not think it will be criminal to mention his wife and daughters’ names on his page as a person’s success at work is fuelled by the support, faith and love of his family. Besides, many other cinematographers have their spousal and children’s details mentioned on their pages.

i. His daughter Abigail Jain is a popular Indian television actor who has a Wikipedia page to herself.

ii. His daughter Kimberly also had a Wikipedia page, which has now been discontinued as she has taken a brief brake to complete her high school education

8. While I appreciate the spirit behind the freedom available to anyone to nominate personalities / articles for deletion from Wikipedia, I would like to share a recommendation that you also put in place a method to control nominations that are made with mala fide intent (of which I am certain is this case) I realise that my notes and comments are lengthy and therefore appreciate your time and patience to read through it. I look forward to an informed decision on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 April 2013

Please understand I am wholly uninterested in this speech of yours. Please place any relevant comments in any deletion discussion and ensure the article passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia is about articles, not about personalities. I have no idea why you have left this on my talk page and especially in the wrong place and not signing it. If he;s notable he stays. If not he goes. I have no particular interest either way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still raking about to try to fill in missing refs for the English Setter article but I keep being distracted by other things - especially as I decided 'what the hell' and nominated Irish Red and White Setter for GA review, so re-did all the refs for it. Anyway, about the English article, I've either found where the sentence about grooming/show coats came from or the site has copied the wording from Wikipedia (word for word). It's this food company. I'll re-word to be on the safe side but do you think it counts as a reliable source? Maybe we could eventually try to get this to GA! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds as though each has copied from the breed standard, doesn't it? It's not exactly a reliable source, but it isn;t a primary spurce, necessarily. GA would be amazing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not ideal but as I'm just trying to ref other editors contributions, I'll try to re-word and use it anyway. It might take a little while as I tend to work things up gradually but I think we could get it there eventually. I may well see Val Foss in a few weeks at SKC so might give her a ring to see if she's got a copy of her English setter handbook that I can get info from - she wasn't speaking to me for quite some time but I no longer seem to be persona non grata (at the moment!) to her; must have finally served my sentence or she was very bored and had no one else to speak to the last time I saw her! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Margret Barnes work is considered authoritative in ES circles, too. But WP will view t as a self published work even though it is almighty tome. I've got one somewhere. Not sure where. We used to live a few miles from her and went and got one in person. Wonder of it was a signed copy. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the sport well enough to weigh in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This user remembers (with nostalgia) having to use punched cards to run BASIC and Fortran programs.

I saw your comment "I had enough of those as an Algol programmer, back when Pontius was a pilot." Wow! I didn't realise there were any of us still alive and kicking. So, did you use an IBM Golf Ball typewriter? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did. And Telex machines, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I still have my copy of "A Primer of ALGOL 60 Programming" by Dijkstra. (And I programmed Telex exchanges ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mine was Burroughs Extended Algol, a mix of 60 and 68. There wasn't a huge market for Algol programmers, so it was hard to escape. COBOL just looked like a lot of writing, writing, writing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work getting the RFC closed when it seemed that the range of opinions on the matter had been exhausted. It will be interesting to see whether the requestor carries through on their professed interest in escalating the matter. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The best thing one can do in a situation such as the one there is to remain focussed on the matter in hand and detached from it at the same time. There is no real 'next stage of elevation'. He can only really appeal the rationale of the closure now. Anything else is usually frowned upon. He has a drum to bang. The best thing to do is to let him bang it until he annoys people enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather he realize he's annoying people and stop banging the drum, but we'll see... Doniago (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We all realise things at different paces. Their pace seems to require the use of mandatory suppositories before they realise it :) Others find the disconcerting snap of the rubber gloves before application is sufficient to make them wake up. He will realise, one way or another. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This imagery comes perilously close to constituting incivility. :p Doniago (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Only, I think, if one has a latex allergy ;) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tim, Re: Matthew Shepard: The reason the phrase "an American" in the first paragraph was redundant, in my view, is that it's obvious. Both his name and the details of his place of residence are given in the first paragraph and suggest rather clearly that he was American. Add to that the biography frame on the right (born:...) and it's more than obvious - hence the redundancy. At any rate I'll accept your edit if you wish to keep it as the most current. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In general I think articles need to have content where regular readers rather than well versed editors will find it. Sometime this means apparent duplication. There are many people who live in the USA and who attend US universities who are not US citizens. We disagree, which is fine. I am not about to get into an edit war with anyone over this. His citizenship is probably the least important part of his short life and brutal murder. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tim:

Thank you for your words of warning. I think it would be helpful that before "rushing" to condemn me, that you read the record of AfD. Wiki has already apologised to Ronin (and in the email to him, also to to me) for the abusive names being used. And then, those who have been admonished, remove the record from the AfD.

Quite happy to take this all the way to the top. A VERY senior NAMED academic was disparaged. And I was accused of being a "liar" and "committing fraud". It just never stops. And you dont seem to appreciate that Wiki is skewed towards unfairness. The accuser hides behind all sorts of codes "civility" should I dare respond to accusations which use the vilest language in the first place.

If you wish to join the group attacking me, then fine. But I prefer you didn't because after all, I am simply trying to ensure accuracy of the article itself, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility in a rarefied subject, which is not only very poorly supported, but moreover, but for this article, is inaccurate.

My record shows that where I have been tenacious, it is for a solid "gold standard" reason. I have no hidden agenda. Other than academic purity. And it seems I have go through hell and high water for that. Read the record on the foot of the Afd, which has been collapsed by the very same user who has been admonished.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article, you know, nor in attacking you, nor, in fact, in supporting you. I am entirely neutral on the matter and choose to stay out of this affair and the article. The thing about WIkipedia is that there is no top to take it to. That alone is a hard thing to grasp. No hierarchy, no-one in charge, just the alleged wisdom of crowds. Sometimes that is good, other times it sucks badly. I understand the place perfectly, or, rather, I understand that Wikipedia is wholly imperfect. I simply know how to work within it and accept its limitations.

I hope you are not under the illusion that it is an encyclopaedia, though. It may produce one, but it is a social experiment. "We" created it along with a load of rules, some of which are rubbish. The thing is a loose collection of folk, some of whom have great brains and some of whom are sharing a single braincell with an amoeba. And each of us is equal. Scary or what?

I haven't condemned you, you know. If you have a good case I'd like your case to prevail. If it is a bad case then I'd like it to fail on its merits, not on the fact that you are upset.

Of course Wikipedia is unfair. How could it possibly be otherwise? Just remember that no-one will die if this article does not exist here. If it;s worth getting bent out of shape over, get bent out of shape over it, but do that well and wisely. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You know what Tim: I almost wept when I read your words. FINALLY sense. It's all been too much for me. I have had wonderful support from so many senior users. But the AfD process is just so utterly open to exploitation. It's a truly brutal process. Which is why the policy is so right - but yet it has been ignored so many times over with the EMC Article. I'm not a "despot". I've worked collaboratively in my field. I know the "rules". And Im always open to suggestion. But it's almost like a feeding frenzy descends and no matter how many times you try to explain that it is a highly specialized subject, it does not make one iota. But you're wrong: there is a hierarchy. No organisation can exist in law without someone taking responsibly. And if Ronin proceeds with lawyers (and Ive said it so many times now, that he never supported the article), then they will sort out the "wheat from the chaff". Somebody somewhere in Wiki will have take responsibly for the very serious allegations made, if Ronin proceeds to lawyers. Look ,we're talking about allgegations that he forged his own EUREKA certificate. It's THAT serious.

And this is where the "social experiment" ends.

If you read your history (I dont know if you do) but I recommend the closing speeches of the Prosecutors of the Nurembourg trials. A very eloquent discourse is presented by (from recollection) the American prosecutor. How the Nazi party came to be so powerful: It's secret? Never to have "rules". Allow the strongest of the strongest to "rise to the top" by whatever means, and, key, suspend the Rule of Law. Allow power to be seized by a "land grab" and suspend any notion of "accountability" and "responsibility" (i.e., the Rule of Law).

The remedies are quite simple though: AfDs should not be proceeded with except for a co-signature of another wikipedian, and always upon discussing first with the editor. Second, scientific articles should require the author to state their credentials on the articles talk page. That way, Wiki's credibility in Sciences take a leap forward. Because as my process has shown, why would anyone in "serious" academia trust it?

This said, there are excellent scientific article on here. Bags of them. highly advanced biochemistry being one of them. But there's the rub. They are so OBVIOUSLY "specialist".

And this gives you a clue as to what is the real issue here: the article is so bloody good, it "spoofs" the "editors" into thinking it is a "armchairs lawyers" subject- i.e., that ANYONE can edit. So on that level, it is actually TREMENDOUSLY "clever". But the while "Rome burns", the persistent (inconvenient) truth is ignored - yet it endures - namely, despite appearances, it is a highly specialized and rarefied technical subject. I have said this so many times now, but it's "in one ear out the other". I have even set out a special section on the article's talk page - but that is ignored.

As I say, the article is SO "good" - it does what I hoped it would do, namely to take a very technical subject, and "trans-code it" into something relatively accessible for the "scientifically curious" reader. And that's because Im a 58 year old retired (senior) life sciences academic who has taught undergraduates biochemistry: a FEROCIOUS subject.

....and instead of everyone standing back and seeing it "for what it is" - understand its "beauty" instead I am being put through hell and high water. And this editor (who will never write another article on Wiki again), will be lost.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now looked at the article. On its merits, and only on its merits, it passes WP:GNG. I chose to go to the AfD and state this with simple clarity. Even if one does not agree with the wording of the article, it deserves to remain. Now here's the thing: I think it will remain, but , and this is also the thing, that is despite your many protestations, none of whose validity I have looked at.

May I give you some real advice, not that anything else I've said has not bee real? Well, I'll give it, you may or may not take it. I don;t mind whether you take it, I just want you to listen quietly, to understand and to make a choice. It's going to seem pretty trite, perhaps patronising. Then I'm going to tell you why I am giving it to you.

Step away from the article and from the discussion without uttering a single word further

That is it. It sounds like an order, but it isn't. It's advice

The rationale is that this crazy place is just a hobby, and other people sometimes take their hobby too seriously. You haven't been here long enough yet to experience it in all its vicious glory and all its occasional sweetness, and I promise you that other editors, small and insignificant ones, probably, will achieve getting you blocked for some infraction of the rules.

Additionally, please read TLDR another piece of alphabet soup, but hugely relevant to your potential success with this and maybe other articles. Not for the article, that may be as long as is necessary, but for your work surrounding the article. This place works on bullet point brevity. I;ve tried long and reasoned speeches. They fail simply because of their character. People ignore their content. "Oh, another rant form an imbecile!" that's all they get.

It's flawed.

It's the best we've got

It's still flawed.

We can change it, but that takes time. Steering the juggernaut is a task for herculean patience, pure logic, and a lot of luck. I;ve managed a couple of small, tiny, course corrections, but I will never manage to get it to deviate to a different road.

So please, if I am of any influence at all on you, start to do the hardest possible thing here. Become silent on the matter. Talk to me with pleasure, about EMC, about life in general, about philosophy, but not about the gentleman whom you state has been maligned. Tell him he has been maligned, yes, but do not act for him here, neither as his representative nor as his champion. It just isn't worth it. That is his battle. Allow him to fight it.

My advice is based on several years of experience here. I treat Wikipedia as an academic exercise in dealing, in writing, with people whose background and motivation is not known to me. Some of that is the creation and editing of articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD process is not as cavalier as you consider. There are "Proposer and seconder" rules, but they are invisible. If I nominate, the article does not get deleted unless the discussion has additional participants agreeing with me and arguing for the deletion unless the decision to delete is 100% clear cut.

One may also go to Deletion Review to challenge the closure if one wishes. That is one may challenge the facts of the closure, but one may not rehash the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jono, I understand your frustration, and that you didn't understand that you chummed the waters by your own innocent but improper actions of removing the AFD tags. Wikipedia is a rough and tumble place, but on the whole, things usually work out in a fair manner. The problem for experts is that they know their field, but not our system, and as flawed as our system is, it is the best we have come up with to allow everyone to participate. There is no perfect system. Often times, it is very difficult to differentiate between an expert (improperly) defending their work, and someone spamming the wiki, unless you are an expert in that field as well. Wikipedia is a wonderful and neurotic place, full of people who are kind, helpful, brash, insensitive, knowledgeable or malicious. Sometimes a combination of those as well. Nothing is really "deleted" here, by the way, they are just moved out of public view. Admin like myself can always restore deleted articles outright, or move them off the main pages and onto a user space page to allow the editor to work on it unmolested until it is ready for publication in the main encyclopedia. Actually, I still do most of my writing out of main space; it is just easier. There are a lot of rules, but most are intuitive and those that aren't are time tested, yet still open for change. Policies and methods are tweaked constantly here. It is often useful for experts to find a circle of friends here or a mentor to help them understand the policies and methods we use here. Once you get used to how things are done here....well, you will probably still criticize it. We all do, but we accept that most of the craziness is a compromise and is there for a reason. Your experience is rare, most people just edit away here without bumping heads, and do so for years. Once in a while, things just get out of hand. This is no different than the real world, honestly. I invite you to stick around, learn the system just a bit, and find some joy in editing. It should be enjoyable most of the time, even if it is frustrating every now and then. The best advice I can give you is to listen to the others, ask for other opinions if needed, and don't take anything personal. Listening is the key, and not dismissing out of hand. It doesn't require you agree (or even like the person) but we all are on the same team, trying to build an encyclopedia. Calmly discussing our differences guarantees a better reception from others, while getting bent out of shape makes it too convenient for others to dismiss your ideas out of hand. Like in the real world. You can use my talk page to ask any question and I will be happy to help you the best I can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis makes an excellent point. The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise, you know. All else is random noise. Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic advice. Jono, I hope you find a way to stay. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being nice to noobies.

Bearian (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind I hope it gets on with my puppy. :) Fiddle Faddle 20:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification.

There have been discussions over this issue that I have linked to, and I believe it establishes using the picture of a dead person in such articles as long as there was no chance of finding an alternative picture. If you want to see older discussions, please let me know and I can find them. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles are not about dead people. They are about the event of their death. Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The specific scenario on using those pictures in articles about those people's deaths has been discussed already. You are welcome to re-open the debate and debate it again, but it's good to read the previous discussions so you know what points have been covered. The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 5 deletion review was about this particular scenario. The relevant XFD was Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_21#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg. Because of the DRV of 2011 December 5, it became a keep. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also made a link to the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Usage of photos of deceased people in articles about their deaths and contacted the people at the XFD, but not the DRV. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not what we wish would be the case. The issue is what. legally, the case truly is. One of the greatest challenges with Wikipedia is that people consider that the alleged wisdom of crowds trumps the law, that Wikipedia is somehow above the law, because they opine that something they wish to happen should happen. Prior discussions, whatever they may contain, truly are immaterial. You must do what you see fit, I don't object to that in the least. I'm not about to have a long and impassioned debate about any of this. But the outcome needs not to be what people wish to happen, which seems to be a pleasant picture of a dead and unfortunate person embellishing an article, but needs to be the thing that the laws and our policies prescribe. Fiddle Faddle 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia when one wishes to re-visit an issue it is best if he/she demonstrates an understanding of the previous discussion. It is best not to say that a previous discussion is "immaterial" (surely legal issues, which is your main argument, had been considered previously, right?) but one can say "I read the previous discussion and it did not discuss or consider ABC, so therefore WXY" - It shows you are adding something new, a new argument that needs to be addressed. Anyhow, In the XFD that I cited, it points to NFCC#8 and an argument on why it passes NFCC#8. The NFCC guidelines were written with US law in mind.WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, to which you are welcome. I have my own. It differs from yours. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You have, however, misquoted mine. I suggest you put that right. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay. I posted the exact words and linked to diffs. I feel like the paraphrasing (it's not direct quoting) "Tim Trent stated on his talk page [...] that he does not wish to consider previous deletion debates" adequately summarizes your stance, because you said that the previous discussions were "immaterial" - that told me that you believed they shouldn't be considered. I will admit that I should have linked to a diff so editors could see the context. Anyhow editors are going to close all of the image deletion discussions you started. See this diff. They want you to instead contact WMF legal about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I refer you back to the concept that something is not correct because the alleged wisdom of crowds wishes it were correct. You have a drum. You are banging it. that does not mean the drum may be banged at this time, in this place, where drum banging is prohibited. Look, the official notices on the various noticeboard prohibit drum banging, yet you are banging away hoping to change the notices. It's rather like protesting to a traffic warden that the parking ticket he just issues doesn't refer to you. Protest at city hall. WIklipedia works by policy, not by precedent. It says so somewhere. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion is to post that on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_May_20 and then immediately contact WMF Legal. I can get you contact info if you need it. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hej!

I am Swedish Gold.

The EMC Deletion Discussion was closed last night in favor of retention. Hurrah for common sense!

At the instigation of Lukeno1994, my "price" is now to be investigated as a "sockpuppet" I have made a comment on the Sockadockan discussion you should read.

I was not informed and only found out by accident as I have been asked to analyse matters before a formal complaint is sent to Wikipedia Trustees. Ive seen some pretty bizarre actions by Luke. One was just after I started probing the probity of "Epic Crusader", last night where he wrote a message to the administrators begging for the deletion discussion to close (but he did not post that at the foot of the thread). Second, he summarily banned a Swedish user from Umeå last Saturday morning because the user let Lukeno1994 know that was upset to find out that the original author "Jono2013" had (apparently) collapsed last week due to stress brought on by the successive deletion debates etc.

Luke seems to have special powers to block users without any response, but he claims to be 18.

You were right to defend EMC. Please email me if you wish.

mvh Swedish Gold (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a very odd place. Administrators come form all walks and all ages of life. Some are excellent, some are questionable. It is reasonable because of your tone and the content of your edits to check that you are not being two people at the same time. Never be concerned about such things. If you are not being two people at the same time then you will come out of this smelling of roses, of you are then you will be warned, perhaps blocked. Either outcome is fine, honestly.

With regard to bizarre actions by administrators, well, it happens. They are human beings too. There are meant to be checks and balances, but those are handled by other human beings. The entire system is fallible. I am making no comment about the admin you have mentioned. I have no idea about whether his actions are good or bad. Time will tell. But he is unimportant. So am I. Indeed so are you. We are none of us important here.

It seems that Jono collapsed, yes. The realist in me suggests that any stress could have triggered this. It was waiting to happen, and it was singularly unfortunate that the trigger was the stress he encountered at this unreal place. And that leads me to the rather peculiar issue here.

It is not EMC. Honestly, I never defended the article more than stating that, in my opinion, it belongs on Wikipedia, and that any aspects of it which were promotional can be handled by editing it. Others disagreed with my view, and that is fine. Why should I be correct?

And there you see, I hope, the difference between the way I edit Wikipedia and the way others edit it. I care, of course I care, about article quality. I am passionate about that, but I do not let that passion spill over into any form of stress. There is nothing on Wikipedia that is worth dying over. It's an imperfect encyclopaedia, kind of. If you look above this section you'll see another editor is discussing his opinion with me. he and I differ. By his other edits on the topic he seems to feel very strongly that he is right. He may be right, but I don't think so. Bit, as you see, I refuse to engage in lengthy debate about the minutiae of my opinion versus his opinion. While I don't exactly trust the consensus here to form a valid view on this topic, one that is a legal issue, I submit to its will. You will see in my message to Jono way up above this that I fear that the wisdom of crowds also creates lynch law.

I have honestly no idea if you are a sockpuppet. I hope you aren't and that you go on to have some real fun editing this thing as a hobby. It can be quite therapeutic. It's a skill challenge to be able to write neutral articles and play in this shark infested pond safely. I commend that challenge to you. It's hard! Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir:

I will note your points which are well made. I hope you understand that having discussed with Professor Ronin, I understand a lot of very serious academics were helping Jono2013 but I do not know of his credentials. He says senior academic in life sciences. If so, then loosing a contributor like that is wrong. I would prefer to thing that Jono2013 was trying to protect those who were helping him and felt that he was being made a fool of. If he has academic pedigree then surely this will have added to his stress. If you wish to take a look I have found many "tertiary" sources for EMC. I have posted a few on my user page. All of them are available on the web, but the titles are not always self saying "EMC". One need to know what one is looking for. Jono2013 maybe didn't yet have that experience but maybe felt embarrassed to trouble people. Brits can be like that :-)

Whereas we Swedes don't see the point of half doing something. We can be very direct because we are very trusting. We trust unless otherwise. Not other way around. I will look after the page for the meantime and hope Jono2013 is okay. You can be sure he did a very great job.

Mvh/ Swedish Gold (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted this as part of a mass rollback. Ronin...like in the movie? I did like that movie. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I had a feeling that might be the case. I have a suspicion that we have just seen lunch law at work. Yes I do mean lunch. I think you were uninvolved in the various discussions. It seems that a topic, 'EMC' upset some folk as not being as genuine as t might be. That upset the contributor, who, regrettably, became stressed, too stressed to function as an experienced editor might have done. Blood was scented and the hounds of hell were released. They had a good lunch. I think Wikipedia has probably suffered a loss here. Gentlemen whose academic credentials I have not verified but do not doubt have seen the wisdom of crowds and found it distasteful. Wikipedia's reputation suffers again.

Even if the matter is a hoax, or is spam, we might all have dealt with a stressed new editor with consideration. We chose not to. There are reports that he has become unwell over this matter. And even if that is not the truth, something I have no way of checking, the implication that we are able to provoke stress related illnesses in the ordinary editor new to this place alarms me. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• By the same token, I can walk through a casino and never be tempted, yet my wife gets beads of sweat on her forehead thinking about it. Should I blame the casino or the person that lacks self-control? As the SPI clerk who blocked, I had no choice but to be unemotional and simply connect the dots that were before me. The damage was already done, and all I can do is mop up. When it comes to COI, I've found that highly educated scientist-types are no less irrational than anyone else. The opposite may be more likely, and they are invested in more than one way. When that irrationality becomes disruptive and takes the form of sockpuppetry (confirmed in large part by CU), we are left with no other choice. His primary account is only blocked a week, and he is welcome to come back and edit with that account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I was not criticising that block. There are rules. Even if they are not know to the letter, they exist. It is the same as speed limits. I hope the gentleman returns. It is the matters prior to the need to block that I despair of. I agree that academics are, from a Wikipedia perspective, often standing too close to their subject for comfortable editing here. We need to recognise that better, and handle them better. Fiddle Faddle 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• We agree, and I always appreciate your perspective, even in the rare times we disagree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The thing I wish we could do is tame the hounds of hell. They smell weakness and bay for blood. Anyone deciding I am being uncivil about their own actions here needs to take a long hard look at those actions. Those are the people I am calling to account. If the cap fits then need to wear it. Why is it that some perceive they have a licence to rip another editor to shreds? None of us has that licence. Does the Editor Retention project have any thoughts on this unpleasant phenomenon?

As you see, above, I have a wholly opposite view from another editor about the validity of the display of some image files. I believe they have no place here because they are copyright files. They believe the reverse, copyright issues notwithstanding. They and I are holding a civil discourse. However, I wonder how an inexperienced editor might have viewed their perfectly civil messages. I understand the cut and thrust here, an inexperienced person would have been unlikely to have done. (Of course this is a complex area where an inexperienced editor would not have nominated the files for discussion). I am not criticising that editor in any way. I am using their correspondence as an example of the need for folk (me in this case) to understand what happens here before they express strongly assertive opinions.

I seem to have started to ramble. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pratyya Ghosh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of alumni of St. Stephen's College, Delhi because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Pratyya ^(Hello!) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you on your talk page. Your warning is impertinent in the extreme. Fiddle Faddle 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure if this is a test page it looks like obvious vandalism to me why did you tag it as a test edit? Thanks in advance :) Prabash.Akmeemana 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not vandalism per se. It is a new user testing their abilities. Hence it is a test page. Vandalism is somewhat different, usually with malicious intent. This has good intent. Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, since you've been involved in past discussion on this topic, you may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Review_of_navigational_templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mars 4NM, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: If there is a link it is always worth checking before considering A1! Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Link or not, there is insufficient context in the article. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a well studied area and there is lot of research that has been done. We have done our honest efforts to help the community to nderstand the problem and give various algorithms to solve the problem. I request you to reconsider your nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperias (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pperias: I have simply nominated it for deletion. Others will discuss it and decide. You should discuss it there as well. Fiddle Faddle 15:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Timtrent: can you please tell me where I should do the discussion. I have always been a wiki user but this was my first article and hence do not know how/ where exactly I should do the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pperias (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pperias: That is easy. It is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planted motif search. Now STOP. Before you dive in take the time you need to do two things:

1. See how the article can be improved to assert notability and cite that assertion, and then improve the article.
2. Argue from a position of facts, facts, facts. Never stray into rhetoric.

It is well worth reading WP:ACADEME first. There is time to do so. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@@Timtrent: Thanks much for your inputs.

Please see [1] where my edit summary explained that I was redirecting the article to Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

I agree that the new version created a few days ago by new contributor Tgillombardo is inadequate.

Would you agree to simply restore it to being a redirect, at least until a version is prepared that has enough new references to survive an {{afd}}? Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Same applies to Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir. Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with that. The problem is that, now I have kicked the AfD off I am not sure of the formal process to achieve it :) We have invented a rich bureaucracy! Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think you are entitled to withdraw the afd. You can give a diff to this discussion as your explanation for the withdrawal, and one of us can rever to the redirect. I don't think anyone will object to that. If you withdraw these two {{afd}} I will request these and other redirects can be protected from editing at WP:ANI.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Achieved it. Onwards and upwards. SInce you seem to be firing in all cylinders, may I suggest you do a quick scan down that article area to solve what others seem to have 'fixed'? Fiddle Faddle 17:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I reverted those articles back to redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Easy to do once we;d worked out how :) Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 10:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have placed a n A7 speedy tag on this article. In general, any author who -- like him -- has published multiple non-self-published books has enough indications of importance to pass speedy, tho not necessarily notability. In this case, he clearly passes notability, as someone who the articles documents as having won 3 if the major French literary awards--awards about which we have articles in the enWP and the frWP, Documented major awards equals notability . Furthermore, though standards for notability are different in different WPs, this article with counterparts not just in their primary language frWP, but 7 other WPs, including the deWP, whose standards of notability are stricter than ours. This should at least give caution in placing a speedy tag. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The true joy is the checks and balances which stop the deletion when notability is seen. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note - I've changed your tag of {{db-person}} to a {{blp prod}} because of his alleged association with Rajasthan High Court. You also wrote "Previously deleted as non notable" here, yet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanwant Mal Lodha doesn't exist. Can you clarify what you meant? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine you have checked the edit history and the log? No issue with your changing to BLPPROD. It will either meet it or not. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah right. I thought you meant it had been deleted by AfD and was therefore also eligible for WP:CSD#G4, in which case I would have tagged the article as such. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too :) Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this SPI case, and as and when it closes I'll race you to tagging the article as {{db-g5}}. I'm not sure I've got the stamina to go the full ten days of a BLP PROD! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I bet you will beat me to it :) Fiddle Faddle 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)