Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

My mistake forgot to change the name from the article I used as a template. re speedy deletion is it just that the names don't match or is do you believe that there are further problems with the article. Waacstats (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just the names. Looked bizarre. Will unspeedy in a sec Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Thankyou, must double check everything in the future. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Waacstats (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help me. some dude called Wuhwuzdat deletes every single thing that I do. Please reply to my talk page Dude 88888. thanks. Dude 88888 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat says;hey dude, try not throwing vandalism temper tantrums in the future. oh, and not being an Admin, I have never deleted anything. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in whatever this is,and have said so on 88888888's talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I've been doing some work formatting List of Jat clans for legibility by migrating it from one very long list into currently 4 columns. I've noticed that a huge number of the names are not in alpha order, and suspect this is not wilful, but may be a language issue.

Is there a simple way of creating a sort "thing" for each of the sections to make life easier for contributors and readers alike, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. When you start your table syntax, use:

{| class="wikitable sortable"

Please also see Help:Table. Cheers. //roux   18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought of that. But the page is not in table format. So can I have a table split itself automatically into 4 columns. I sued a template to columnify it, not a table, and thse things are dynamic so the table has to auto split. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're using {{col-begin}} or something? No, I don't think that can be made sortable. Looking at the setup of the page, I don't really see any way to make each subsection sortable within itself. You'll have to use something like Excel to sort everything, then CNP into the article to have them in the right order. //roux   18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I'll reactivate helpme in case someone else has further ideas. There has to be a way. I don't mind investing "one time effort" to do it, but not "oh god, not again" effort. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Roux seems to be right. Surprisingly few WP editors are any good at tables, and there doesn't seem to be a way to do what you want there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We are lousy at it because of the appalling MW pipe syntax. Can you think of a place to ask this question in order to get the broadest set of opinions on it? I don't disbelieve you, nor Roux, but it just seems that it "ought to be possible" somehow that we have not spotted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

← You could try at WP:VPT. Someone there might know. Best I can suggest, I'm afraid. //roux   19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving it a punt at VPT I wonder what ideas will come along. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim, when an independent third party declines a CSD-tag, it is a bad idea to reinstate it. It is a worse idea to do so when the third party has added references to reliable sources to counter the CSD nomination. It is disruptive to re-tag a third time when notability requirements have been met; that's not helping the encyclopaedia, that's obstructive trigger-happiness. Would you consider in future taking to AfD those articles whose suitability for CSD is contested by third parties? Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've seen your comment at my talkpage and perhaps we were simply editing past each other. Skomorokh 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I also got confused about who originated the article. six of one and half a dozen of the other. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

These things happen; back into the breach! Happy patrolling, Skomorokh 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally go on the notion that anything without wikis and with such self-promotional language has to be either a C&P or a copy of a print article. Even if it wasn't the tone would have required a total rewrite IMO. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see it rescued than to stay deleted. It certainly established notability. Believe me, you won't hurt my feelings if you do rescue it. Have at it.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Go on then. Drop it into my userspace and I'll have a crack at it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Have fun! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy, made the ref's visible and removed the negative BLP stuff. Please go through and see if I missed anything. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job well done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, when I looked at it, I winced. I did a bit to it, but like I said, I'm not convinced notability is convincingly established. I could write a get rich quick book too, if I were get rich quick! Thanks for your note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: When filing SPI cases, please file under the name of the MASTER account, rather than the SOCK. This allows us to more easily track the socking history. Mayalld (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for doing "it" wrong, but this is new territory for me. Any chance of unjargoning that? All I knew is that we had an editor running riot who needed to be stopped. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in every case of sockpuppetry, there is an "original" account that the user registered, and additional accounts that were added later, to evade blocks etc. Cases should be named after the original account. Mayalld (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So in this case I suppose that would be INAYAT KARIM? Sorry to seem stupid, I just want to get it right for the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. The idea is that for users who repeatedly sock, all their sock reports will be gathered together. Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Grateful. I will do my best. No guarantees to get it right every time though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If getting it right every time was a requirement, I suspect that we would all be sunk!

Hi Tim. Just wondering if you were as blind as I am?

Just returned from buying the necessary for tomorrow in the town centre and spotted something at Bracknell railway station...

In between the road bridge and the SR concrete footbridge is a telegraph pole, but not just any telegraph pole, this one is an original (Southern?) railway telegraph pole, with three of its original seven arms and still with insulators attached! I don't know whether I am more surprised that it is still standing after 50-60+? years, or that I've managed to walk past it 100 times without noticing it!

How rare are these now? Must get a photo before it's too late...

EdJogg (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It may go the way of the The Runnymede Yellow Jumper! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just silly! (But I like it! -- a prize to the chap who wrote it, even though it means extra work for other editors.)

As the telegraph pole is well stuck in the ground and, even more surprising, appears to be supporting a single cable still, I suspect the yellow jumper will go before the pole does...

EdJogg (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is... Will you write an article about it? And, if so, where!!! Or shall we hang the jumper on it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a thought.

Keep your eye out for Telegraph poles of the London & South Western Railway. I'll get onto it right away, and let you know when it's up for GA review...

EdJogg (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You could plot the co-ordinates of each one! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Emails received about Wiki issues are not to be released without explicit permission from the sender (as per various arbitration cases). Please refrain from doing such on User talk:Mhkarim. — neuro^(talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear I am not interested. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are interested or not is completely and utterly irrelevant. Desist. — neuro^(talk) 10:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another set of unknown rules created by an elected body of the alleged great and good to beat people about the face with. I have told you. I am not interested. Wp is bureaucracy gone mad. Lord of the Flies with manners. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

dear bro,

        i don't have referance for this editing on internet(Origin of name Jhelum)

but i have a book named, "tareekh-e-Jhelum", mean History of Jhelum, and i have written what was written in that book, so how can i add a referance from internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainlara73 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Use the template {{cite book}} and all will be well. However be careful not to quote the book verbatim but use it as a reference to your words. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is not restored, please userfy the article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Artivist Film Festival & Awards so I'll have the histories and be able to work with other editors in bringing it "up to code". Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this has been carried out already? If not you can grab it from the article history. I wish you luck with finding good sources. It deserves to be there, but I can;t spot the notability for it yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it and thanks. The thing was kept, but I'll be working on it as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just delete it. I have transferred the above to my website at Dummipedia, LOL. I would be glad to transfer all AfD nominations to my website for further rework. Will be glad to know where I can get them. — PM Poon (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That is up to the community, not to me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I set up a workspace for User:Raymondaaron to build in. And suggested he seek advice and input before moving anything to mainspace. Might just work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, based upon history, he seems to hear advice and take a little of it. See my efforts on his talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I read the talk page.... and I'm pretty sure he don't like you one bit. So I thought to throw a little oil on the waters and give him a quiet place to work... let him know that help is available if asked. No reason he cannot become a productive editor. It was strange too... he was reacting as if he was totally unaware that someone had improved the article enough so that it was kept. I think it is win for wiki to have an article about the co-creator of Chicken Soup, and will look into ways to trim out some of the motivational fluff. Its on my to-do list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote the guideline - "However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Lists of allegedly notable people and business continue to be magnets for a lot of non-notables to advertise themselves and their businesses. If you want, I'll hold off on removing the list again but I remain strongly skeptical that articles on these allegedly notable people will even be attempted. Regardless, Brainlara does need to stop removing the tag until the article is properly sourced and needs to stop using heavily POV words like 'famous' and 'valiently' unless they can source those POVs. Edward321 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you at all about "properly sourced". With some lists we would have a disagreement about redlinks there, but this set of lists does need to be properly referenced. I'm by no means asking you to hold off. If you feel they should go, then go they must. What I'm hoping to do is to get two editors pulling in the same direction. I see {{fact}} tags being removed rather than redlinks being included. Most of these people are not globally notable and will not appear in reliable sources. I'd far rather see them cited than articled. a good example of such is Epsom College where the alumni are unlikely in the main to have articles but are "somewhat notable" and thus cited. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Timtrent- I believe that you are the person who originally posted four 'banners' (for lack of a better word) on the Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952 page.

Please take another lok and decide if you think the remaining two (or any others) are still relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952 LP-mn (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job well done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Norton PC Checkup, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Just no reliable references and not notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TechOutsider (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I wish to move User:Timtrent/Joyce McKinney into the main namespace as Joyce McKinney. I see that a prior article was deleted and salted. I have no idea of the process to use to request this.

The stub I've created is properly referenced, neutral and a stub. If it is a simple administrative matter of unprotecting and moving please do that for me, otherwise please advise on the precise process to use. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUP Hope this helps. Jonathan Hall (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be that simple. I'm starting by asking the admin who deleted and salted if they will unprotect. Thanks Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good outcome. Good job. FF/Timtrent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was by no means all me. I just started it off in the right direction and even listened to people! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that my account is no longer unjustly blocked. Do please take a step back from the hostile and combative attitude that you have displayed. Wikipedia is not a battle unless a user chooses that it be one. In the future, you should consider a more helpful attitude rather then assuming such hubris by judging credible work as "rubbish." Hopefully you have learned something from our encounter & have amended your arrogant obtuse attitude. Good luck to you in getting other valuable contributors to Wikipedia deleted & blocked. Surely, you shall need it.--Badams118 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You disregarded many messages on the article talk pages themselves (now deleted pages) and continued to insist that the alleged article that you created was "complete" and "not WIP". You stated later that you had no idea that the article had been deleted some years ago, despite the huge notices every time you re-created it that you were recreating a deleted article. An 11 word article is rubbish by anyone's standard. Eventually I called the spade the spade that it was. You became abusive and continued that abuse. Now you have brought your battle here.

Now be very clear: I have no interest in any conversation with you on any level at all. Your account was blocked by an administrator who was asked by another to review it. On that review you were given a second chance. I don;t care either way whether you are blocked or not. I care about the quality of articles. Be a good quality editor and continue, or produce rubbish and get it deleted every time. Either is fine. This is the final response that you get from me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This nasty uncivil post is grounds for a reblock, Badams118. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I think I was. I told you to remain civil and yet following your unblock, you're here writing this diatribe? You were provisionally unblocked. I now support reblocking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish to remain neutral in any discussion about reblocking this editor. I can see where you are coming from, and to a limited extent, where he is coming from. This matter is now for others to judge. What I will not do is delete the diatribe from the talk page nor my archives. I have a firm personal policy of leaving all attacks in place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent (amusing sig you have there). Move to commons and delete is my normal method for image like this...orphaned and unlikely to become used soon but good enough to keep. Otherwise the debate would close as "keep but move to commons" and sit here for a long time...while those on other language sites are deprived of its utility - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked that out. It is a pretty poor image, though. It was uploaded by the subject of the photo as self puffery for an article that was deleted. I think it a shame that you went to the effort of moving it to commons, bit that was your decision and I'm not going to argue with it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If Schumin has deleted your article, then it is impossible for it ever to return. You could attempt an appeal but this will result in the admins closing ranks around you - it really would be a pointless waste of time and before long you would be banned indef. for 'trolling'. Wikipedia is effectively run by sad little men with no personal lives whatsoever. The admin cadre will never back down, and are intent on running this place into a narrow minded buraucracy. I'd advise you, and anyone else who's ever had the experience of dealing with one of wikipedia's more egregious and pathetic admins to buy a Brittanica subscription. This place is beneath contempt. 86.40.202.161 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not litter my talk page with venom. I am not interested in your attacks against another editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The man is an ingrate, a fool. He listens not to reason, but to his own flabby inhibitions. 86.40.202.161 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps aid me in my attempt to restore good relations with Schumin? All I want is for him to recognise I exist and I will disappear. The conflict we had was over a year and a half ago, where he really displayed all the worse traits of a wikipedia admin. He refused to explain his position without the aid of a template, or basically to act like a sentiant human being. Perhaps you can help? Anything would help at this stage. Regards 86.40.210.125 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest most strongly that you place a conciliatory message on the right user page. I do not know Schumin and I do not get involved in disputes between users. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for telling me you can add those citations for Paul Martin Andrews if you want its not a problem with me. :) Valoem ^talk 12:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I did all I want to do with it :) It can take its chance now :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Norton PC Checkup, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton PC Checkup. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TechOutsider (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi dear Bro, i think you are an Administrator, so i need your attention please,

Few days ago i came to know that there has been a duplicate page of article Jhelum (City) created by some user Som3boy (talk) named Jhelum, Punjab. This article is almost same with little difference, but have no referances. Also i want to notify that a user page INAYAT KARIM (talk) has been deleted. Now what i think, is that Som3boy (talk) and INAYAT KARIM (talk) are the same user, Som3boy's edits are similar to that of INAYAT KARIM's.

Once again i request Speedy deletion of the page Jhelum, Punjab, and a warning to Som3boy. thanks. Brainlara73 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. PLease bring thing up in a relevant forum, whcih you can find by instering the charactwsrs {{helpme}} on your own talk page along with your request. I have no interest in this matter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks, and sorry for disturbing you.Brainlara73 (talk) 00:03, 01 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlast, i was right, once again sorry for disturbence. Brainlara73 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to know what you were right about :)

If it's about redirection etc, this is a thing you are able to do yourself in the future, you know.

I am never worried about being disturbed. I just don't do politics.  :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Vandalism-only_account. -- IRP ☎ 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Umuahia Pind Dadan Khan (tehsil) The Speech Arochukwu Neeli Mersey Flat WCWM Gujar Khan Bilander Bahawalpur Birgit Prinz JCC Peshawar Roz Weston Pram (ship) Committee on Social Thought Shade's Children Misaki Ito Pirmahal

Cleanup Closed list Chadhar Ewe people Merge Psychiatric survivors movement Chicken Little (2005 film) Mailing list Add Sources Ultraviolet (film) Urecco Police rank Wikify Chet Helms Straitjacket Bagh District Expand Radiation poisoning Fujifilm Parent

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle didn't finish the process for you, leaving a red link on the afd page and a disgruntled hammer-wielding otter who smashed the red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)}

Thanks. Twinkle can be a real pain sometimes. When I checked what it had or had not done it seemed to have done precisely nothing, so I left it. Mea culpa. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the books into account, but I didn't base my closure entirely on them. I said the subject is clearly notable, as evidenced by the books, among other things. Regardless, consensus was to keep the article, so I feel my decision was accurate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've clarified my rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you expressed an opinion in the last AfD regarding UK service areas at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, I'd like to inform you of a new AfD discussion which has recently been started by another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). In the interests of keeping this within the rules regarding canvassing, I am sending this to everyone involved with that original debate, regardless of if they voted keep or delete, or if they appear to be active or inactive. Jeni ^(talk) 14:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Original-guns-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Original-guns-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Original-guns-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Searchlight-tunnel-old-needles-battery.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Searchlight-tunnel-old-needles-battery.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Searchlight-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Searchlight-Old-Needles-Battery.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to appreciate your work with Narwat, I had come across this article in an extremely undecipherable format which I tried to decrypt, but reverted back after finding some better previous versions trakesht (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Teltek) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! GedUK  10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no concerns about accidentally choosing an incorrect criterion since the process pits the suggestion before a competent admin who will then make an informed decision. One cannot get it right every time however hard one tries. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly there is no Simple Wikipedia article for poop deck, and if there were it would not be a viable alternative to having a well-written article for the topic. It's not complexity that marks a good article, it's clarity and effectiveness of communication. The first sentence in that article doesn't manage any of those, it is esoteric and conveys very little information. It seems to have been crafted more to disappoint than to inform, for reasons unique to the subject matter. Simply because you are not aware of the difference between Simple English (a controlled language designed to teach English to foreigners, who you have charmingly characterised as dummies in your summary) and clear English doesn't mean you have to act on your ignorance with offensive flippancy. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that I have nothing to add to my edit summary. The article is concise. The edit summary was civil. "Dummy-friendly" was your phrase. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply being concise doesn't mean it's clear, and the leap from dummy to Simple English, targeted at beginning English speakers, was yours and yours alone. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you were correct then I would agree with you. Do you often start fights? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, can't say that I do, but rarely do I find an edit summary so obnoxious that I feel as though I have to comment. I don't wish to get into an argument over this any more than I imagine you do, so I'll let you be, but it couldn't be harmful to not only think before you commit edit summaries that could others could take exception to, but also be a tad more open to the opinions and concerns of others when they raise them. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for giving me valuable advice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go with that flippancy again, you must be charming to hang around. Ok, well, see you around. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no pleasing you, is there? You pick a fight, and, even when thanked, you still throw punches. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (James Cornish) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! GedUK  21:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the answer I gave you earlier. Please do not give me standard messages. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

you have to admit, he has a cool pic on his user page.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

sad, but true. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for removing the tag, and a fair point about eponymous articles. Timwthornton (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Sturmey-Archer. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Rgds, --217.42.180.86 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you need to learn what vandalism is before making accusations. My actions will stand up to community scrutiny. Will yours? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help improve this page. Please let me know your opinion as how best to add citations.

Do you know Nigam Arora? If yes, you can help improve the page based on your knowledge.

John williams 7 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams

I have no idea who this person is. I have strong doubts that he is notable. Please look at {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and use the cite button to insert citations. Read WP:RS and use only reliable sources. Look at the areas where citations are needed. At present the article is likely top be nominated for one of the deletion routes. It looks like an advert. Please read WP:NPOV Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not know Nigam Arora, what is your basis for your opinion that he is not notable. Are you in his field? People in his field know his accomplishments well.

I am all for improving this page and other pages on Wikepedia and would not mind working with you in this regard. My background is change management and engineering. Will you be kind enough to disclose your background? Such disclosure will allow meaningful exchange. What other pages have you made similar comments? I have reviewed numerous other biographical pages and it is clear that this page on NIgam Arora is superior to a vast majority of other comparable pages. I have not seen your comments elsewhere.

In any case, I will be working to add to this page over due course of time. Your input is welcome

John williams 7 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams

My background is 100% irrelevant to any edits I make to any article. I chose to take an interest in the article for random and arbitrary reasons. I edit wikipedia to improve random articles, to create random articles, to suggest improvements and to improve articles, to rescue articles from deletion and to suggest non notable articles for deletion.

Since you feel that my background is relevant, I have been everything form a computer programmer to a CEO and a management consultant. None of these roles is at all relevant.

No other article is relevant either. That other articles exist and are better or worse than this one is an invalid discussion point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please reply to my previous message so that we can have a meaningful interchange. Instead of replying and discussing, you have taken the unilateral step of nominating for deletion improperly. THis is highly improper since you know that I am still working on adding more content.

Please immediately remove the deletion tag, at least temporarily until we are able to discuss. Failing to do so will confirm my suspicion that you are acting on some personal vendetta against this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be uncivil. The tag cannot be removed now until the process is completed. I do not like your assertion. It borders on something that the admins here would consider investigating. I now propose to ignore it, and, unless you apologise, to do my best to ignore you.

Additionally please learn how to use section headings on talk pages. Everything is not a new sectionFiddle Faddle (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please disclose your real identity . —Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to Lauraeabbott. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Crusio (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I recall placing a speedy deletion template on an article, and then warning the originator for removal of that notice. When I flagged the article for deletion it was very different from the article as it is now. As for biting newcomers, the answer is that I did not and do not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• For a newomer, our tags (like the one I placed just above) are often rather daunting and they don't always understand what is going on. And as you just experienced, getting such a tag on your talk page makes you feel irritated at least... :-) I have placed a note on the talk page with some tips to avoid her getting into this kind of problems more often. Having said this, even the very first version of the article in question, which you tagged for speedy 10 min after its creation, does not really look very promotional in tone to me. Having said all this, I also do some new page patrolling from time to time and given the amount of egregious advertising and self-promotion that one then encounters, I also sometimes get a wee bit too "trigger happy" and am apt to lose my patience with newbies engaging in this kind of behavior... :-) Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There comes a point, I agree, when one may go with a tag too far. One may also wish that a new editor were also one who had dipped their toe into the water first and created articles second. However much one may wish that there is always a small core of folk who plunge in instead of getting wet slowly. In the global scheme of things this doesn't matter. But, of course, in the global scheme of things Wikipedia is unimportant, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I need help from an admin who is familiar with and can perform removal of defamatory material from an article's history.

Please look at this diff and note the juvenile accusation made.

I have no connection with the school. I am not even sure why the article is on my watch list, but I reverted the vandalism, warned the vandal and discovered that the IP belongs to the school. So I contacted them to let them know. They are concerned about the defamatory stuff. The childish stuff is just childish stuff and no-one cares about that.

The help I would like is in removing this item from the history on the basis that it can be considered to be defamatory. I am obviously not able to do this myself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to take a look at WP:REVDEL for more information, if you're interested. Either way, thanks for the heads up on that diff. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agh, apologies; I removed one revision, and neglected to remove intermediate revisions between that one and your revert. Should be fixed, now. Beginner's mistake, sounds like I need some more sleep. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

~passes you a soft silk pillow~ Thanks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A certain User:John williams 7, who seems to be new to Wikipedia, has filed an arbitration case against you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CGaming the System .3E. I'm undertaking to notify you because of this user's obvious unfamiliarity with the process. --TS 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy in notifying me. I have made a very short comment at the arbcom case and will await whatever result happens. I imagine someone will tell me the outcome at some point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gaming the System and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

--John williams 7 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC) John Williams

Once and for all, I have no interest in any form of interaction with you. I neither know nor care who you are, or anything about you. I will not take part in this process that you have started except for the brief paragraph that I have entered. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've received praise for removing what many people find to be a hugely embarrassing part of Wikipedia. Every article is now loosely associated with prime time television and adult cartoons. This is unacceptable. Many other people have concurred with this sentiment and thanked me for removing this fluff from Wikipedia. I will continue to do so, regardless of your wishes. I don't believe this constitutes vandalism and will take this up with administration if you continue this line of debate.Mundilfari (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it up with administration then. Do that now. "praise from many people" is not consensus. Your edits are part of a WP:POINT campaign. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Early Wynn Salter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It will have to be AfD then. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD#A7 requires only that an article assert importance, not that it establish notability. The article says Salter had a song in the Billboard 100, which seems like an assertion of importance. Try PROD instead of WP:CSD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Number 55! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Malik speedied the article anyway. The claim of a charted hit was false. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank you and your intelligent critters Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1, which has not received much commentary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wasting your time, because you will not find any. The information I have provided is largely first-hand insider information. It will not figure in any authoritative journals. The 'Unreferenced' banner you inserted is merely the knee-jerk reaction of an indoctrinated "Don't Know" contributor. I am a "Do Know" contributor. I dare say the level of your Wiki indoctrination will not allow you to accept that. If so, more fool you. --JHB (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please put new sections at the foot of the talk page.

If they are not referenced then, since this is an encyclopaedia, they must go. You may not like it, but Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, it is concerned with referenced information. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I know you're an idiot. I care not for Wikipedia any more. I don't care what you do, and after seeing the remark above I don't care what you think. When you have grown up you will realise. --JHB (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please visit this incident report and leave any appropriate comments there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at my delete request (which used the db-move template) closely enough to understand what I was attempting to do? The article about the short story should be located at The Swan (short story) rather than The Swan (short story by Roald Dahl), in accordance with article naming conventions. Because an article had (apparently mistakenly) been created at the former title before it was redirected to the latter, I can't move the article to the correct title until the history there is deleted. Your reason for declining doesn't address my concern, since obviously, the redirect is valid given the current article placement, but the redirect should be reversed. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the merge discussion and attempt to build consensus in the article to which it is redirected? This predates your speedy deletion request and consensus should be built on it first. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

my comments here User_talk:Penbat#.7B.7BAbuse_cases.7D.7D --Penbat (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have a need for a template for navbox subgroups with in excess of 20 groups/lists. There is {{Navbox long}}, but {{Navbox subgroup long}} does not yet exist.

I've done some basic work at User:Timtrent/Navbox subgroup long but, as you can see from User:Timtrent/sandbox it stops at 20 groups despite my diligently creating a further set of entries form 21 to 40 inclusive. Pretty obviously I've missed something! I think, hope, I've done 90% of the legwork, so it just needs expert tweaking.

I need help to make it work, please. I don't mind whether that is on the page in my userspace or whether you move the story so far to the template namespace and do it there, but I need more skill than I have to create the finished product. It also needs the template documentation page created (probably a copy from {{Navbox subgroup}}, but with the edits that show that 40 subgroups are now possible), and that page categorised correctly.

I see this template as one that will be used rarely. It is exceptional to need in excess of 20 subgroups. Even so it may also require similar protection to other templates in the navbox area since the scope for messing up multiple articles in the future will be largeish.

All help gratefully received. Since the template is quite complex and the templating language is arcane, I suggest you only help me if you truly know what you are doing. Otherwise the scope for driving yourself nuts is huge. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it – {{Navbox}} just doesn't accept parameters higher than 20, so you have to either copy what {{Navbox long}} does, or use it, like I did. Also, the {{helpme}} template isn't the best way to get answer to such technical questions as this one. Template talk:Navbox, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates would be better. Svick (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How gloriously simple! Thank you. And thank you for the advice on the way to get help, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

... can be found in articles such as Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. It doesnt conflict with the abuse and abuse cases templates as it is doing something different but you need to be aware of it. I am tempted to put the abuse and abuse case templates also in Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests etc even if Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests etc dosnt have an a entry in abuse or abuse cases.--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you resist the temptation :) It goes counter to the expectation of those who then become against the template. :) Instead trust categories. It is reasonable, where appropiate to create a link like [[:Template:Example template]] within a template. It delivers this: Template:Example template and nothing is transcluded, Obviously one should pipe it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few with all 3 in anyway such as Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases and John Jay Report. You have to decide boundaries as to what goes into abuse cases and what not.--Penbat (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One knows when one has been successful when other editors take over. Quite some time ago I started {{911ct}} and others made it fly. I hope for this here, the more so since my interest is "only" as a disgusted onlooker, as a gay man who feels defiled by these damned catholic priests mainly abusing boys, and as a WP editor who is a fan of good articles and templates. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of LGBT Jews. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:SACC--Penbat (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gewikstatspolizei! No, no and a thousand times no!. Ve haff vays of making you obey!" I do not appreciate that kind of racism. Yeah, I know, some of my ancestors were racist and created a police state. So what? The British had slavery, the Americans had... ...a whole load of stuff, the Russians had Stalinism etc, but you don't see anybody going around stereotyping against them for some ugly parts of their history. These kinds of jokes were what allowed things like the Holocaust to happen in the first place. Furthermore, I would like to inform you that almost the entire Polish part of my family was brutally murdered by the Waffen-SS and this is not a thing to be made fun of. Thank you.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 00:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

please try not to over react to humour. Your suggestion provoked my reaction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you have posted on mundilfari (talk · contribs) talk page about his deletion of pop culture sections without discussion, attempts to wikify or sufficiently detailed edit summaries. You may be interested that I have brought this to the attention of the admins here and may wish to make comment. I am not making any request for banning / blocking, merely that someone gets him to understand that it is not good practice to continue to delete sections other editors have clearly indicated have at least some intrinsic value. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I received your comment. And, after looking into it, I will accept "amongst" as word. However, the only reason I've accepted it is, because I found the word as a usable variant to the word, "among," on, "Merriam-Webster online." But, I didn't find it in the Merriam-Webster hardcover that I have. And, your online-"dictionary" source, "TalkTalk," really has no standing or credibility, because it's not widely known or accepted and could've been posted in five minutes, even by you. And, with all due respect, who are you? I, for one, want somebody or an entity with verifiable credentials putting together the dictionary that I use, not just anyone who sits in front of a computer screen- or an unnamed, unknowable entity with unverifiable accountability. User:Canihaveacookie, May 23, 2010, 9:27 UTC-5

Would you like a saucer of cream?

I gave you a large list of sources to investigate. I am guessing you are in the USA where the word is almost unknown. The aggressive attitude you display in your message to me is quite unnecessary. I find your attitude to be unpleasant. You need to learn humility and realise that you are not the only knife in the drawer.

The phrase "With all due respect" is wholly offensive. It is a veil for extreme rudeness, and that is the way you have deployed it.

Open your mind and learn things. You never know when they will be useful, or at least interesting.

Who am I?

Entirely immaterial to any discussion whatsoever. Wikipedia is constructed from the wisdom of crowds and thus consensus. I imagine very few people can be bothered to take issue with you over your peremptory removal of a valid word stating that it was invalid. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Please don't take the trouble of replying unless you have a substantial portion of humble pie to eat. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How is her personal website spammy and unacceptable? - BalthCat (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you said to contact you for information about why you want to delete my page. Here I am. I can work on the references, however they would connect to Italian and/or Spanish sources. <<Lucifero4>> said it be be because I am not known in the United States. I hope that is not the case as it would seem quite superficial. Please tell me what I need to do so my page will not be canceled. Thank you. User talk:Kayrush Kay RushKayrush (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the main things you need to do is to read WP:RS and find sources that meet the criteria within it. If they are non English language sources that is Ok but suboptimal. The other thing you need to do is to read WP:OWN to see why the word "my", which I am sure you used in passing simply to refer to yourself rather than ownership, is not a word we hear very much here. Then you should read {{Like resume}}.

Once you have read and absorbed all this information then you will be well placed, apart from one important fact, to correct the article. And that fact is that the article is about you. Autobiographical articles are deprecated. Correcting a factual error is acceptable, writing trcts of text about yourself is not. That you have contributed at all to the eponymous article is also against it.

To address this you can place the text you feel appropriate on the article's talk page and ask that another editor, any other editor, makes the corrections to the article, or you can risk editing it yourself.

You should also participate in the deletion discussion, but not with pleas, nor with rhetoric. Facts alone will save the article, and you need to report that facts have been added, how they comply with WP:RS and suggest that these facts are sufficient to save the article. You shoudl note that this is not a ballot, but a discussion. A simple headcount is or should be irrelevant to the closing decision. If that decision is one that you disagree with you are entitled to as at WP:DRV for it to be reviewed, but you must provide substantive arguments there. Saying "It ought not to have been deleted" is insufficient.

The article itself is badly written. That is not a reason to delete it, but it weighs against it. The bizarre mixture of past and present tense is wholly incorrect. That has to change to past tense.

What concerns me is that I cannot find any reliable sources that assert and verify the notability of Kay Rush. And that is why I nominated it for a discussion about deletion. I neither want to delete the article nor to keep it. I simply say that I feel it does not belong, and have put it up for others to judge. One of the unfortunate things one finds with articles about one's self is that one may, after all, not be at all notable. The danger to one;s ego when this happens is immense, and the fact that one has edited the article which is being discussed for lack of notability means it feels like a huge slap in the face. It would have ben far better to ignore the article entirely.

If it is deleted for lack of notability I suggest that you ignore it. When an article on Kay Rush is acceptable to the community it will either remain or be created. But not created, please, by you or those associated with you. We deprecate conflicts of interest. And that is why I see the article as you trying to establish notability when you are not notable.

You may not be watching this page. I will drop you a note there to tell you that I have replied here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now read your comments at the deletion discussion. From my perspective they add weight to the argument that you are using the encyclopaedia for publicity. You say "I only wanted the page in my mother tongue for people who do know me in the United States.". I'm afraid your own wishes for the article are irrelevant to Wikipedia. If it is justified in English it will, should it be deleted this time, be created in English. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will comment here, at the sake of being redundant with the AfD comment, that her usage of "my" in relation to an article about herself is well within sensible usage. I would refer to an article about me as "my article" and a picture of me as "my picture" regardless of who created the work in question. - BalthCat (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING applies, as does WP:OWN. I suspect so does WP:IHAVERUNOUTOFARGUMENTSTOKEEPTHISARTICLE Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're hilarious. I wasn't saying her edits should be allowed to continue, I was merely saying that you could try assuming (in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:BITE) that her usage is valid and non-possessive, in WP:OWN sense. See the picture example, which is spectacularly apt. If I get an article, it will be "my article on Wikipedia" regardless of whether I ever try to edit it. It also wasn't meant as an argument to keep the article. (I only need WP:ATD for that.) I was merely countering your insistence that she is trying to OWN her article and saying that the COI is not the issue at hand. If anything, I'm guilty of repeating myself in the vain hope that people will pay attention to WP:ATD. - BalthCat (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you repeat yourself, do not for one moment believe that I will be ignoring you. I may be, but please do not believe it.

I have paid attention as ever to not only the policy you cite, but to the others that you seem to avoid. Perhaps a good approach would be for you to mentor this editor and work with her in order to see if you can create an article that will stick. That would seem to me to be what rescuing articles that are salvageable is about. I've done this myself where I've seen a glimmer of hope, and yes, we worked around COI. But those occasions were not blatant advertising, just poor articles. BLP must be notable and verifiable. No exceptions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring WP:V and WP:N. I understand their importance, I simply don't agree that four months of verify-tag, and a half-dozen editors searching during an AfD is sufficient to say "no one will ever source this". I have a problem with the assumption that failing WP:V cascades to failing WP:N. I also believe it is inappropriate to tell me that in order to be justified in calling to keep an article (because of WP:TIND and WP:ATD) that I must then back it up with hours of work exhausting all the sources I have (which are not spectacular), for an article I don't even care about. WP:V can wait when there are marginal sources (a multitude, including local publications in Italy and the USA) which establish a reasonable possibility of reliable sources globally. If WP:BURDEN was the killer of WP:ATD, then the verify-tag wouldn't be listed. I'm honestly exhausted by the feeling that I must spend time in the AfDs periodically to see what deletionists are trying to kill off because there isn't an academic article at their fingertips. I suggested that this article be brought to the attention of a relevant Wikiproject (Spain or Italy, etc.). I watched to see if someone who wanted to delete it would bother to do what I consider good practice (per the spirit of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD), and I am not surprised that no one (to my knowledge) bothered. Then finally, when I do post a source half-heartedly at 4 or 5am, you appear to be casting pre-emptive doubt on any more sources I might find via Google Books. This frustrates me because it is unfathomable to me that Wikipedia has become the success it is IN SPITE of the presence of so many imperfect but varied articles rather than BECAUSE of it. And this really ought to signal another lull for me, because I can't handle it. I just don't have the calm. - BalthCat (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What length of time would be enough? 6, 7, 8, 9 months, a year, two years? Neither deletion nor rescue should ever become a fetish, they are just tools. Article quality is paramount. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been valid, and you are tending towards that in your argument. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to know if the last change i made is better. Im sorry as you can probably tell i am very new to this and i want to get this rite.

Thank you in advance. Arthur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur davtyan (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for the time and trouble you took to help this user; this is the sort of assistance that I wish everyone could get with their first article. I took the trouble to look up the relevant standard, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker, and Mr. Georges didn't appear to me to meet it; there was a doubt in my mind with respect to his captaincy of some sort of team for Lebanon, but I was unable to discern any real notability in this that met any relevant standard or WP:GNG. I've deleted the article but Mr. Davytan may come to you for further assistance; I've suggested he get in touch with the WikiProject Poker folks if he wants to explore the boundaries of the standard but he may bring this to you. Again, thanks for your assistance to this user. If I can be of any administrative assistance to you in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A total pleasure. Where someone is trying, I try in return; not always, but often enough, I hope. There is some assistance you could be, not to me, but to the community. I lodged an issue at ANI which has now come close to the top of the current incidents page which could do with an uninvolved admin to run a ruler over it with a view to summarising and closure. The issue is complex and is here. Since you have had no dealings with the entire issue you are ideally placed to come to whatever conclusion that you see fit. Or you may choose to contribute to the discussion and allow someone else to summarise. If you choose to run a mile from it I will quite understand! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not running a mile -- I asked you if there was a service you wanted, and you answered, so I'm on the hook <grin>. I have looked over the long history of User:Mundilfari and the AN/I discussion and I agree that the topic ban seems appropriate in the circumstances. However, I have never imposed a topic ban before (my experience at AN/I is extremely limited, although I'm currently trying to stretch my boundaries) and I would prefer to consult the experienced admin who briefly blocked Mundilfari (a Mr. Watson whose exact username escapes me at the moment) as to how he plans to proceed and perhaps get some useful advice on what to do and how. This may, of course, merely prompt him to go ahead and do it himself, but I'm hoping to learn something by what is done and how -- and why. If this qualifies as weaseling out, please do feel free to let me know what your wishes are; I'll leave Mr. Watson a note. Thanks, believe it or not, for helping me extend my boundaries as an admin. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly sound process to go through. i had to unarchive the thread just now, so I assume ANI is intended for high discussion loads and for fast work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the comment you just removed from this discussion; I think I understand why you removed it, but I still think it does you credit and I feel roughly the same way (I probably wouldn't have expressed it as well, though). If anything further arises as a result of this -- for instance, if User:Mundilfari breaks the boundaries of the restriction or if you become aware that any other administrator or editor disagrees with the outcome -- please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It was timing, only, that made me feel the need to remove it. I left my thoughts too late and it became superfluous. It is sufficient that they are in the page history and he may read them if he chooses. Thanks for the compliment :) And thank you for bringing the events to a close so simply. It was not, I think, entirely simple to achieve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As per a recent discussion on my talk page and elsewhere, I've amended the editing restrictions to make it perfectly clear to the user in question that he can (and has been) blocked for infringing them. Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "loonies" is not acceptable.[1] Please re-read what you wrote and consider revising it to comply with WP:CIVIL. You'll be more effective if you do. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly civil to me. But thank you for your concern. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, who has self identified as a loony and is also an editor here? Go read the comment again and then consider withdrawing your uncalled for remark. I refer to those who think there are paedophiles hiding under every bush. Frankly your message is, itself, bordering on the uncivil. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you remove references to the 3rd nomination from the second? Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Not in any straightforward manner. See below! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I nominated for deletion Metallurgical education using Twinkle. It misfired, and we have a spurious 3rd nomination. Looking at the AfD page I cannot see how to remove the spurious 3rd nomination. I'm trying CSD currently. All help gratefully received Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD seems to have done it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the best bet would be to CSD the 3rd nomination with twinkle. Though I guess you already dealt with it. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious, but was a good bet. Thanks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked me on my talk page to monitor a discussion at Talk:Metal production in Ukraine#Consensus for article title. In fact the discussion did not go any further after your request, so it was probably not necessary for me to do anything, but having agreed to do so I have assessed consensus and closed the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to drop by and thank you. The formal closure is likely to mean that it does not return to the Metallurgy title. Now it can move forward to whatever better title may come. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not had much time for Wikipedia over the last 24 hours plus, so I have only just seen your post to me about an edit which "reminds [you] of a user known to us both". Yes, it reminds me too. However, I am not sure that being an admin gives me any special power to investigate this. It gives me more power to take action once it has been investigated, but that is a different matter. A checkuser would have more investigative power, but I doubt that the amount of evidence available at present is enough for a checkuser to take any action. Obviously you can contact a checkuser if you like, but my guess is that the answer would be "no". I think that the best thing to do for now is just to keep an eye on the matter. If you see more of the same, either from the same IP or otherwise let me know, and I will happily take what action I can if and when there is enough activity to justify it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

hi, Sry if i posted this wrong, I am a computercluts. I was wondering what happened my page Foolish European Mothers (mothers of the Plaza de Mayo counterpart in Europe) is gone, would you know how to bring it back. Also after bringing it back, can you look at Foolish European Mothers (with the emphasis on foolish) and give some pointers on how to turn this page that now looks more like a figurefractals painting into a neath row of numbers with nice expressions stating something like 'click this and you will go to a nice site about...' Also I copied pasted the red and yellow card and wanted to paste in the 2 pages of the folder that I uploaded...much to everyones amusement I have got a yellow card and a letterspaggetti. I had to air this page prematurely as people were asking would I add their plight to my upcomming page. There is a guy cycling Europe at the moment to raise awareness and he has to be mentionned now that he is cycling. I got this notification, just found it now (remember I am a computercluts) Speedy deletion nomination of Foolish European Mothers Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Foolish European Mothers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding hangon to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Foolish European Mothers Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Foolish European Mothers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding hangon to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tsumetai (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimothers (talk • contribs)

I have answered on your talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be better to delete all this too, as the page, alerting the people to the secret tapings with the crucial lies from governement officials, has been removed permanently and I for one do not know how to bring that back and the foolish european mothers-team considers wiki state-infiltrated now. They state that the tapes are too important to jeapordise by a post on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimothers (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try not to be silly. Wikipedia is a global thing. No state is powerful enough to infiltrate it. I have no relationship with your cause, for it or against it. Please do not try to involve me in your politics. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent!

I declined the speedy deletion of Facebook search. The text does not seem unambiguously promotional. I suggest letting the AfD run its course. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly content with that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I didn't realize you had already commented as "Fiddle Faddle" there. Regards, decltype (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Timtrent. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Philly jawn (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Hi. I am in the process of nominating the above-titled movie for deletion as you had done previously and I just wanted to let you know. I recognize that the first nomination was unsuccessful, but this film is simply advertising for a purely speculative event. There is less than a 50% chance the film will be released, let alone absolutely no assurance that anyone will actually go see it when it does. I agree with your original nomination that until a movie is released and customers actually pay to see it, it should not be posted on Wikipedia, otherwise it is mere advertising for a purely hypothetical event... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he is the guy who became so notorious as a headteacher who got off on beating school children that it helped to speed the banning of corporal punishment in schools. Doesnt sound like he ever got prosecuted but you could still consider it an "abuse case".--Penbat (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It was lawful, thus is unlikely to qualify. It was even an unexpected behaviour. Technically he would not be an abuse case even were it to qualify for other reasons because he would be a perpetrator, assuming the allegations are founded. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Child Life has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, no sources. External link provided does not mention this journal.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Child Life, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Life until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crusio (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken your hoax tag off - it isn't. See Stephen Gately. Whether he counts as notable by himself or not is another matter. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html says internet businessman. Blowed if I know... Peridon (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The man exists. The hoax is that he is an internet businessman, not an actor. Back to you :) Frankly he is only notable for being Gately's partner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell of a lot of refs for businessman - is there anything to conclusively say he ain't? (I agree about notability...) Peridon (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we are missing in the middle. When I flagged the article as a hoax it said he was an actor! The editor who created it altered the Gately article to say so, too. The Crowles article also has no real content. I think you might reconsider the fact that it is, truly, a hoax. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bit about him and Gately is true - they were 'married'. I don't think he is notable but wondered what the creator was going to come up with. (Doesn't look like he is... ) How about a redirect to Gateley? Your keyboard or mine? Peridon (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at The Fistfull (sic). (Same creator.) What a cast! And the IMDb link goes to 'Yvonne Burbach' - I've tagged it hoax. (Someone else had prodded it.) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say we have a very unusual editor here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No more - blocked for socking and hoaxing. Peridon (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your draft about the cyberbullying issue. I have made a mental note to edit it with some changes from my perspective, when I get some time. So it's not stalled yet. Or at least, not permanently. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be grateful for your any any editor's considered edits. You might want to copy the excellent questions you raised to the draft;s talk page. At the right time the draft and its talk page will be moved intact to the right namespace. This should happen, of course, even if I no longer agree with any single word left in it. Consensus is very much more important than my own views.

I am not here that much, and, while I can see that it can wait, I think it is also urgent insofar as preventing kids from being hurt is always urgent.

My initial objective was to start with something. It is always easier to start with a base on which to build than on a blank page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to un-template PM800. His edit was not vandalism. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I warned this editor informally for this edit previously. Now I have warned them formally. I will warn for the same edit made in the future as well. Those are the breaks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, and as someone who is just as committed to fighting bullying as you are... and just as aware of its potential consequences as you are... I think you made a very minor mistake here. Vandalism is vandalism. Someone perhaps being wrong about what is bullying and what is not bullying is a problem, and that should be fixed. But you should not call it vandalism when it is not vandalism. That just undermines all of the efforts being made to stop bullying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a history here. This editor has repeatedly made this edit without any attempt to discuss it, has been asked not to do so, and has been told what will happen should he continue to do so. He makes the same edit repeatedly from time to time. He does not respond, and consensus is impossible to start to achieve because of this. Thus the only conclusion I can draw is that it is no longer possible to assume good faith and that it is vandalism. That this is an editor with a long and decent track record does not make it any less of a vandalism edit, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The article NCI Froward Point is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep writing and do what I do, I also add a copy of my writing to Google Knol and I add biographies to Findagrave and Familypedia. History only exists if someone takes the time to write things down and compile what is already written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind you, as the apparent creator of the article on the article on the Ship Spotting World wiki, that reusing Wikipedia's content does have some terms and conditions, available here: Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Also, on the subject of the AfD - don't get too personally involved! Hrafn isn't on a personal crusade to get you (though I know life can feel like that sometimes)! I think he's probably right in a few respects, and I'm going to try and do a summarising post to explain why, but again - please don't look on an AfD as a pitched battle between you and all comers - it's not supposed to be like that! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote both articles and have contributed them equally to both web sites. I could equally argue that Wikipedia is reusing Ship Spotting World's articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well as soon as text is submitted, it's subject to the copyright permissions of that site - so either way, it needs some attribution. Perhaps a general statement, on both, that the article is available on the other? The important part is that the contribution histories are at least linked somewhere. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I spoke too soon - just seen the talk page notes. That should be fine! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is subject to the licencing of the site. The copyright never leaves the hands of the author. By placing text on one of them the author grants a licence to the site upon which it is placed. See the terms of use here for example. Technically this means that the same author as copyright holder may place his or her work anywhere without attributing any other source, and without being accused of breach of copyright anywhere.

Wikipedia is itself copyright. It cannot avoid being because it is a work that has been written or otherwise created. It licences, because that is agreed when one submits any text, including this text, works within it to be reproduced freely and with attribution, but Wikipedia itself is copyright. This can get somewhat complex. For example the layout produced by Mediawiki software is also copyright, but it is licenced to users. So something can look very similar to Wikipedia because it is licensed to use the software that way, is itself copyright even if it contains works that are licenced for free onward use with or without attribution, but would be in breach of Wikipedia's copyright if it looked precisely like WIkipedia in all aspects of look and feel, though not necessarily content. Complex, is it not?

Now try to legislate for works submitted to different web sites by the same author, which are identical or almost identical in content and then get that understood by communities of editors like we have here who are not versed in the niceties of copyright and licencing. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

I understand that and absolutely agree with you, but there are some people who feel it is their absolute duty to try and enforce their interpretation of policy/guidelines/licence/law and will go to quite ridiculous lengths to do so! This is why I suggested a simple statement that the same work has been submitted to both, and on both is subject to the licencing requirements of both, should cover all bases... hopefully!

On the technical point, it is of course arguable that up until my edit, you were the sole holder of the copyright, that from then onwards, it ceased to be solely your copyright, because I had re-used the material, altered it and published it (the exact manner in which I did so not being relevant), and, therefore when you submitted the article to SSW for the first time, it was already not solely yours. Again, I am not stating this as fact, but it is merely an argument that could conceivably be put forward - hope this adds to the complexity! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see why you argue that technical point, but no. You do not receive the copyright of anything that I created, you just have the copyright of your own work, be that a single letter of a tome the size of War and Peace. It does not matter how that might be inserted into an article. What matters is who owns the copyright of which portion. It is 'joint' copyright in a fuzzy way, but not in a precise way.

If I choose when I place my copyright work somewhere else to adopt the correction of "is" with "if" that you also performed then we could spend a while discussing whether I infringed your copyright or simply made the same coincidental edit. However t a court of law would throw the case out as having no merit either way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In 2006 you added two pics to the above entry, but anon user 78.146.63.200 has said they are on the wrong side of the road, so I have temporarily commented them out. See Surbiton_Lagoon&action=history. I will check with members of the Lidos History Society (a yahoo group) and some old A-Z London Atlases, and then re-edit. (Copy on entry Talk page.)--Lidos (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They were taken of the position that the map led me to believe was correct. I have no issue with being incorrect though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You created Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields a long time ago and almost nothing ever happened there. Was wondering if you had anything to say about that since I nominated it for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_21#Template:Abuse_cases --Penbat (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Naturalized citizens of Iceland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i do not understand what i have done that is wrong. Why is it frowned upon if I edit an article that I am involved in? Surely it would make sense that I edit something that I am familiar with?

The current directors at Catalyst Arts have decided that we need to update the Wikipedia page for Catalyst Arts. We feel that it is out-dated and I do understand that the content should be written from a neutral ground. I also understand that the page is not properly referenced and we will be working on finding good reliable sources to quote in the coming week. As for the page I set up for myself Katrina Sheena Smyth I agree that this should be deleted. User:00anirtak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinasheena00 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "current directors at Catalyst Arts" are irrelevant to the page "Catalyst Arts". It is not their page. The page belongs to Wikipedia. What you have 'done wrong' is not to consider the Conflict of Interest issues here with any indication that you are ready to make progress. Wikipedia is not a gentle place, the more so when it is used for self promotion, or appears to be so used. The ability for all to edit should be tempered by understanding the issues surrounding editing articles that refer to one's self.

What you believe makes sense may make sense in the world of commerce. Wikipedia is not in that world. It is an encyclopaedia. It required notability and verifiability.

Wikipedia also frowns, as a community, on accounts that only look at articles where there is a conflict of interest. Edit outside your own area and learn the way of the place. Then enjoy editing. But avoid, take great pains to avoid, articles where you are a major player in real life. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't like the Grauniad's spelling, huh? Well how about the OED then?

rack /rak/ n.

L16. [Var. of WRACK n., WRECK n.]1 Destruction.

Chiefly in go to rack (and ruin), fall to rack (and ruin), run to rack (and ruin).

Cf. WRACK n. 2. L16.

wrack /rak/ n.

2 Destruction, havoc; an instance of this. Freq. in go to wrack.

Cf. RACK n. 1.

Now arch. & dial. LME.

<Sticks out tongue>

Bagunceiro (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if both are broadly equivalent from that, doesn't it. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been visiting the Muse Art gallery in Hyderabad and i have attended all the art events curated by Kaali sudheer. He is doing a fantastic community service in the areas of Art . helping the budding, young, women artists to show case their talent and build their careers in the art . i spoke to him in length and understood that we need to have a wikipedia page for him so that it will be of use for Artists who want to show their works and get benefited. As the gallery is a not to profit started by a big name like Marriott and Marriott have partnered with kaali sudheer. Thought it will be of great use for artists around the world to use this wonderful space and show their talent. I have given the external links of well known sources like US consulate of Hyderabad , Confederation of Indian Industry ( CII) , Yahoo News and well known news papers Hindu and postnoon etc.. —greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregx1872 (talk • contribs)

I am happy about all of what you say. Wikipedia does not, however, provide a platform for advertising things. It is an encyclopaedia. If the gentleman is notable and if this is verifiable then the article needs to assert this correctly. You should also, if you have not already, contribute to the deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi where is the advertisement in this ? do you think Marriott requires a Wikipedia to promote their art gallery ( which is a not to profit gallery ) . they have a website called muse.co.in which was not mentioned even the sources. kaali sudheer is notable and you can make out with the search. am not writing here to make you happy as this part of the world very few pursue art and very limited knowledge people have on art and i wish he will be of great use for people who want to reach the society thru their art. it became a new thought process for fund raisers and all are interested to help

there are so many links which can be found on search which are not put in the sources if you still think its a promotion then you please go head and do what you want to thanks Greg(Gregx1872 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

Please devote your obvious energies to improving the article, not to hectoring me. If there are indeed "so many links to be found" that are citations in reliable sources please used the and enter them correctly in the article. That is the way to save it. Hectoring me is irrelevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Two things by rule of thumb I do not accept. a] Somebody doubting my judgement and insulting my choice of article work and plastering tags over it to make it not feel acceptable b] Accusing me of being uncivil, rude or obnoxious because I don't take kindly to people shatting all over my work and then picking holes in sources or content I add after the dispute. Try again, approach me without adding tags and ask me kindly to expand it without insulting or accusing me of things.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be expanding it anyway. I still doubt the gentleman's notability, but there is, just about, sufficient material there now to make most people think it should stay. You've edited this organ for long enough to know that tags and criticism of choices of material are a part of life. Having one's judgement doubted is a fact of life. In this article I doubt your judgement. These things happen. I think that the House of Names is an interesting choice of link. You are not a spammer, but it is a link that can be considered to be a spam link. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was filling out red links in my article on Bentworth as it is undergoing GAN, I doubt I'd created him otherwise. He's not very notable, no, but I've picked up enough coverage in reliable sources which indicate he meets notability requirements. A great number of British aristocrats who held country estates are generally notable I find. House of names you've picked up on the worst source out of the bunch there but I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. Feel free to take it to AFD, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get deleted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For me you have done enough. It teeters on the borderline of notability now, it failed for me before. That's good isn't it?. He played cricket once for Kent's 2nd XI and played for his school. Me, I'd have put that last. He did Ok, but he's unspecial. Looks like he never set any worlds on fire, doesn't it? I suspect he was happy to get on the 5:30 train from London Bridge and go home and leave work at the office. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe small world, I see your first wiki article is near Seaford which by coincidence I was looking at last night and thinking how nice it looked, I'd never heard of it! I was looking on google maps and ended up making a map for Bentworth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I created that article by pure happenstance. I wanted to know more about it, couldn't find a thing, and thought others might be interested in what I found when I researched. On the way I learned a great deal. Seaford as a town is, well, mixed. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to enter into a dialogue with User:Oseloka Obaze who insists on making edits to an article on his old school Christ the King College Onitsha that he created. But the edits are all destructive to the good conduct and good layout of the article. Since I am about to lose patience I am stepping away, but I would like someone of infinite patience and wisdom to attempt to guide him. I've tried darned hard, reformatted the poor edits willingly, but am now throwing in the towel. He just doesn;t respond to talk page messages, not at all.

Are you up for the challenge? He needs especially to be guided in how to use the CITE mechanism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to help you out here. I've had experience with people like this and all they really need is a little bit of guidance and some help pages. I'll watch the page, and post on his talk, and see how it goes. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Usually I manage really easily, but, just sometimes exasperation strikes. That's the point I choose to walk away. Helping the other guy is more important than my pride, after all! You may need to perform repair work on the article from time to time. I think he's in the US time zone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	I know we've only just started, but your edits on Christ the King College, Onitsha, fixing the references, must have taken a lot of time and patience! For that I commend you, have this. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Awww, Thanks :)

Many thanks for taking the time to look at my new (and first!) Wikipedia entry. If I understand you correctly, there is some confusion regarding In the Family Magazine receiving awards because they were given to me (in my name) rather than in the name of the magazine. Or were you having trouble verifying the awards? The links to the awards are: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and the American Family Therapy Academy awards are listed on a PDF accessed at the bottom of this page: AFTA.

As for reliable sources to verify my entry, I would be grateful for any tips. The magazine has been out of print for seven years, and even when we were publishing, we had a very low-key web presence. A few of our authors reprinted their In the Family Magazine articles in other publications, which appear online (two of which I included under References). There are quite a few more, including In the Family Magazine's S/M Issue discussion and verification of our Contributing Editors' involvement with the magazine, such as Suzanne Iasenza. Please let me know if these are acceptable as verifiable sources, and if you recommend that I add more to the entry.

All ten volumes of the magazine are indexed and available on pay-for-use sites such as ProQuest and EBSCO. To find it listed on ProQuest, you can click here ProQuest and download the spreadsheet file of SIRS Issue Researcher list. To find it on EBSCO, click on EBSCO and you will find it under LGBT Life (it's another spreadsheet file). Do you recommend that I add these links to the Wikipedia entry?

I would be very grateful for any other ideas you might have for how I can strengthen my entry.

My thanks,
Laura Markowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Markowitz (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Several topics here, so I'll have a go at each of them:

• The awards are in the name of Laura Markowitz, someone I assume to be you. They confer some notability on LM, not on the magazine. so that is a challenge. A citation to associate LM's winning the award with the magazine's winning the award is vital here.
• The links to verify the awards are good links, albeit primary sources. The probem is that they verify LM's winning them
• The references you quote above are borderline. You need read to and absorb WP:RS
• Never assume that the only citations have to be to web based media. Print media is fine, but it needs to be a full citaton to date, volume, page number, etc. Broadcast media is fine, too.
• A slight side issue, but please become familiar with the button which appears when the edit window is open. Citations are your friend.
• Another side issue: HTML markup such as <br /> is almost entirely unnecessary here
• I'm ambivalent about adding the links to the article except as citations to any reference in the article to the fact that they are indexed. One must always beware being seen to be promotional

Even of the article should fail to stay here this time round, promise me you will not get discouraged. You might find this essay useful when you recreate it. If it is deleted I hope you or someone spends time recreating it. However you do need to be aware that your contributions to an article on a magazine you founded are seen as a conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and encouragement. I am going to see if I can find someone who has more experience using Wikipedia's tools to help me do this correctly. It's complicated, but I believe I can provide the appropriate references and citations to make this a reliable resource for readers. I'm glad to know print citations are acceptable. I've got lots of those for In the Family Magazine. Best wishes, Laura Markowitz (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Laura MarkowitzLaura Markowitz (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on OCFHollaines to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Danger ^{High voltage!} 15:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will watch this with interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually delete things with as much detail under 'context'. This time I did, and am still wondering what it was about. If that was an explanation on the talk page, it didn't help... 8-] Peridon (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was either that or waste a lot of time as a non notable neologism and an AfD. I think I also flagged it as advertising, which was also true. It advertised the neologism, and was by the neologist. The talk page descended into 'something'! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you go nominating stuff for speedy deletion you should use this thing called Google and do a wiki search. You will see Jimmey Henchman mentioned in dozens of wikipedia pages, administrators like you make people not want to contribute....--Ron John (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and read the criteria for inclusion of an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Before deleting you should maybe help out rather than take the easy route and delete... I do want I want...--Ron John (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

At the time I nominated it for deletion it was an article saying it was about Henchman and was in reality about his company. Henchman just featured in the opening line. So I suggested it be deleted. Others suggested not. That is what consensus is about. Consensus prevailed. Good. I care, but not that much. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

NO! You just deleted it without providing that information you just wrote. I think you just troll around looking for things to delete rather than doing some research to help the article you and your fanboys just delete stuff without helping.. People like you should be stripped of there privvilages.--Ron John (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted nothing. I nominated it for deletion. Someone disagreed with my opinion refused to delete it. That's the way Wikipedia works. Look here and you will see with precision what happened. Then look at the history and see what has happened since then. I have no interest in responding to you any further if you persist in yelling at me and being abusive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Commercial friending (AfD discussion)

I recommend a look at the edit history of Friending (AfD discussion). Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag on Brad Chalmers, as I have been able to verify that a person by this name did get drafted by the Canadian Football League's Montreal Alouettes in 1999 as claimed in the article, which qualifies as a credible claim to notability. However, I have not been able to verify that he actually meets the notability criteria. I need to do some WP:BEFORE due diligence first before opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Chalmers. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I don't feel strongly either way, but I think you have done the right thing both times. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice when you warn users (PROD, CSD, etc.), you won't always welcome them. Welcoming users along with the warning can help them with Wikipedia guidelines if they wish to start the articles again. Welcoming users will help them rather than warning and suspending them. I find that {{subst:w-graphical}} is very detailed and informative, but you can pick any from the welcome messages category. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle was modified some time ago to do this automatically, I thought. I was the person who suggested it. I use Twinkle. I do what it does. Perhaps you might like to suggest the owner/operator of it modifies it still further? I agree with you. They should be welcomed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ermitanyo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't appear to be a host (I'll ask someone who speaks tagalog to take a look). Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean hoax. As far as I can tell it translates to Hermit. Your call :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Woops. Yes I did mean hoax! It wasn't clear that it was a hoax, but Obsidian Soul had a look and they agreed it was, so I've deleted it. If you tag articles as G3, it helps if you explain why it is a hoax on the talk page, or in your edit summary. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there is an improvement suggestion to make for Twinkle. Fancy suggesting it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You asked that it should be notable and verifieable: There is a website on the French Wikipedia devoted to it: See: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochocratie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piet De Pauw (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't care at all about the topic. If it's notable and verifiable, put this in the article, or, if it has been deleted, crete a new article with the references in it. Use your obvious energies to create articles, not to discuss whether an article was notable and ought or ought not to have been deleted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your help on the Tidal Impact page. I just have a Question. Is it good enough now to remain on the wiki? It is a local event with out a lot in writing in the way of sources. Or are there any tips you might have to help me keep this page active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.25.139 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, I'm afraid. We are a community. I suspect it needs ripping apart and redrafting, but that's just my opinion. As lomng as it is well referenced in reliable sources then it ought to be able to remain Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am clearly not having a good time with all of this and I hope that me typing this here doesn't muck up your page but you are the first person to give me proper pointers and advice on how to "Do the Wiki". Everyone else has thus far been less than helpful so thank you. I now understand that there IS a conflict of interest with what I was attempting to post. What (If anything) can I do to help this matter as the guidelines are quite confusing to me!

Thanks again, if you're ever in Kent I'd like to buy you a pint!

C.J Hixon (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The challenge you face is that your item needs to be referred to in what are known as reliable sources but other folk. When it is, then it becomes notable. I'm going to drop a link on your own talk page that ought to help you. I'm miles away from Kent, I fear. I'm in South Devon :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much! That is so super awesome of you!

Thanks buddy! C.J Hixon (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the list and a proposal, because of your edits to The Needles, a listed item. --21:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are kind to invite me, but, though I edited the article, it was not directly relevant to the topic of rock formations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the references issue on this page. JW

Well, I got most of them :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see here Consequently, the note that you posted to my talk simultaneously is redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, as a gesture of good faith, I suggest you revert your own edits, leaving the articles in the state prior to other people starting to lose patience with your lack of consensus building and poor or absent edit summaries. I'm not seeing willing consensus building from you. I am unconcerned with your views or other views prevailing, it is your editing behaviour that has given me cause for concern. Consensus will prevail whatever your or my views are. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No My gesture of good faith was to stop. I'm not going to revert edits that I think are correct--that makes no sense to me. Actively undoing something constructive for the encyclopedia (even with the laudable goal of showing that I'm trying to build consensus) is contrary to the purpose of editing in the first place. Simply put, the guidelines for categorizing redirects are consensus--they were written with the input of dozens of editors and I'm simply applying them to a small subsection of articles. That's why it's not wise to discuss a broad policy (or guideline) on the talk page of a single article: the discussion there is no longer about that topic, but about a much wider one that needs to be discussed centrally. Anyway, that having been said, I'm not going to bother with fighting about this in the main namespace and I sincerely hope that I stop getting posts about it to my talk so we can all go to one place and get a simple discussion there that I can then apply elsewhere. If, for some reason, it's decided that set categories should have non-set material categorized in them, I will happily follow that consensus as well. What's decided is not as important to me as not having the discussion to decide it spread across a half-dozen places. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Did you honestly think that I wasn't aware of this? I don't understand why you posted it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please try to avoid what I perceive to be an aggressive behaviour in your messages. And please note that the pages you are continuously decategorising are not redirects. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I honestly don't know what the purpose was of that message either... I realize that the pages I am decategorizing are not redirects--that's my entire point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I don't know what I can do to seem less aggressive to you, but I'm not being aggressive--my questions and admissions of ignorance are genuine and seem to go happily ignored by others, so it's frustrating to have these conversations at all, let alone have them in five different places. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Because, unless I am completely mistaken, something which has happened in the past, you have proposed a discussion on the page that deals with categorisation of redirects. And I refer you to my request to try to avoid aggressive behaviour. As for your frustration, we reap what we sow. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am proposing a discussion related to categorization of redirects and I am also removing categories from proper articles and putting them into redirects. I entirely aware that the the pages I am de-categorizing are not redirects: that's the point. What you perceive as aggression is not and I wish you had not perceived it. At this point, I perceive an air of condescension and civility as a guise for rudeness, to be frank and I feel like posts of the sort "did you know that other users have feelings too?" is the sort of thing you would say to a child. I feel like your interactions with me treat me as a juvenile and when I respond to them like an adult, you sense aggression. What do you want me to do differently, Tim? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel patronised or being condescended to. It was not my intention. If my words were interpreted that way that is my fault for choosing imperfect ones. I suspect you feel rushed, and thus have ben less careful with your words than you might otherwise have been. I am never aggressive, not even passive aggressive. I was pointing out, perhaps badly, that your edits had upset people, and that the situation required and requires rectification.

I confess that I do not understand the totality of your edits, though I am sympathetic to some elements of them. I think causing me to understand will best be pursued centrally. I don;t understand what you are saying about redirects, and that may be my own lack of understanding.

Now, nothing is ever personal with me. I suspect it is not with you either. So I propose we, you and I, start again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good You seem alright by me--onwards and upwards. And yes, I was put out by having these discussions flooding my talk and the talk of other users and articles simultaneously. If you're confused as to the nature of this dispute, I can try to further explain at the relevant talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see here I hope this is helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, as you will have seen on the Tyler Clementi talk page, I think I now have an understanding of why you removed some, though not all, of the categories. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Fæ classy in crisis LGBT ally Barnstar!

Recently there was some anti-gay hate here on wikipedia and you worked to unhate. Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community. Congratulations on being an unhater! LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it, just remember to send it to others!LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When I find someone worthy, or a suitable place, it will be a pleasure. I tend not to encounter anti LGBTQ hatred, usually. If I do I tends to batter it down with infinite politeness and patience. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a great approach, I wished it could work in real life with the 100% success or scaring them off it does online as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey I have been working on several articles for hospitals in the Bay Area and had noticed while working on the article for the Richmond Medical Center that you didn't seem to find it at all notable and that sources were pretty meager. I have since expanded it thoroughly and found half a dozen articles on the hospital in the San Francisco Chronicle archives. Since you have a polar viewpoint on the article's inclusion I figure that you would be a good person for some feedback on my expansion. I think the layout needs a ton of work and I am a little iffy about having most of the events of 1997 in the emergency room section and not chronologically included in the history section, but perhaps the patient deaths and federal probe should be its own section or article. Could you let me know what you think?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer is that, at the time I felt it was unworthy of inclusion the article was just that, unworthy. Now the notability is asserted and cited. You've probably realised that I don't care one way or the other about articles themselves, but I care about their meeting the criteria for inclusion. Sometimes I improve them, sometimes I argue for their deletion, based on my own gut feel.

I do have a suggestion for you. It involves slightly more work, but I commend the to you in order to create even better references wherever you can. Adding the quote parameter can be useful, too. If you're unfamiliar with it, do try anyway. If you are my grandmother and these are eggs I'm teaching you to suck, I apologise! I just looked over the gross diff of your edits and noted it wasn't in the work you had done.

If your gut feel says a section should not be included, I recommend noting that on the talk page, seeing if anyone argues against you, and pop bakc a couple of days later and removing it. Other than that I think your edits improve a poor article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to that, I think I may have to use it sometime soon. Thanks.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)