User talk:FT2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Current discussion summaries
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 23:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline


Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
 

The Signpost
10 December 2014

Contents

Rich Shapero[edit]

Hi! Would you mind reviewing your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero? WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT describe what types of events are suitable to be the main topic of an article, not what is suitable as article content. Or are you saying that every article should be purged of events that doesn't meet that policy and that guideline, even if they are properly referenced? As far as notability goes the application of the GNG is always somewhat subjective in the disputed cases and I was surprised to see you simply going with your own interpretation over the rather strong consensus. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure. Slightly fully explanation will go on its talk page tomorrow when I'm home, and I'll review it as well to see if I still agree with myself. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rich Shapero[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rich Shapero. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh[edit]

I'm now seeing the 'Del/undel selected revisions', was the bug fixed? If not, we should probably quickly act to disseminate information about this and caution against using it on log actions subject to breaking per your concerns. –xenotalk 13:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and almost certainly not (I'm CCed on bugzilla for the relevant threads). Going to ask around. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:VPT#Activated Single-Revision Deletion. –xenotalk 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update - RevisionDelete has been enabled for admins (as most here know) - but only for one revision per action. The checkboxes that allow revdelete on multiple revisions in one action are disabled for admins.

The underlying bug issue has not yet been fixed. As best I can guess the idea is that limiting RevDel to one revision per action should stand a chance of being workable. Needs testing though.

My tentative conclusion from testing it so far - log links do still break with deletion, in some cases badly, but the damage is mitigated by the fact it's limited to one revision per action. This does make it much easier to figure out and fix any issues, if the problems described were to happen.

I am continuing to test it and check how the issues stand, I will then post a summary on-wiki. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Unless I misunderstand you, I think you're incorrect when you say "The checkboxes that allow revdelete on multiple revisions in one action are disabled for admins" This was done by checking off three revisions and using the Del/undel selected button. –xenotalk 20:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats odd. I did exactly the same (I think) and it refused to. Werdna said he enabled "single revision delete" too. If you're on IRC can we catch up there to try and figure out together what's going on here? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I can't get on IRC right now. Maybe later this evening, if my son doesn't monopolize me =) But I was definitely able to hide 3 at once: [1]xenotalk 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, /notice or privmsg me or email later then when around. In the meantime I've posted an update at AN to try and mitigate any issues and provide some kind of suggested good practice until we're all more sure what will happen. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to ping NawlinWiki who is deleting revisions like they are going out of style. –xenotalk 22:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I never got around to IRC, I didn't really have much face time with the PC last night. –xenotalk 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading AN and followed the thread to here. When the revDel feature is stable, I'd like to see this page history cleaned up. There are many revs that quite clearly meet WP:CFRD#2 (which is an invalid anchor due to it starting with a digit). It's the work of our most unwelcome vandal and his /b-tards. I started the page and could put you in touch with the founder of the organization (who is shocked at what is in the page history) Thanks, Jack Merridew 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Main issues on that page fixed now. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that's fine. I know there were issues there and with me that required careful judgment and that is why I brought this to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing[edit]

Penbat has, IMO without regard for the ongoing discussion and apparent current lack of consensus on the Mobbing discussion page, restored his edits with an edit summary and notes on the Talk page that cast my edits as Vandalism. I would greatly appreciate your feedback and/or intervention. Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Penbat's conduct towards me, given that the WP:AN discussion was archived without resolution and Penbat's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Penbat has been notified. Doniago (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding Doniago's bizarre aggressive timewasting conduct towards me. Doniago's aggressive behavior towards me has continued. Doniago has been notified. --Penbat (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision hiding on already deleted page[edit]

Hi FT2!

Any reason in particular you changed the visibility of a revision that was already deleted? I do not immediately see the usefulness of this, as the page was already only visible to administrators, but perhaps I'm missing something. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It made an obnoxious edit summary less "in your face" to a passing admin reader. No ultimate net benefit as you rightly notice and no real net cost. Probably best not done on deleted edits, in case the log bug impacts it, so feel free to reverse the visibility hiding and thanks, on reflection you're right. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Since it technically meets RD2 I do not see a need make another log entry just to undo it. I just wondered if there was some profound reasoning behind it. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Mr. Godwin is paid by Wikipedia. Wikipedia also presumably pays the water and electric company. Perhaps, CU and oversight could be a paid position. Hire people and bond them. I heard Wikipedia had a big budget so hiring one professional checkuser could go far to address the problem. One professional CU working 8 hours a day could probably clear the CU board quickly. Wikipedia is in San Francisco. I am sure there are hundreds of computer science graduates from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley who might apply for the one full time position.

This is one of many "other" solutions that are possible. Good luck in picking a solution! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually been considered. And more than once, rejected. I'm not sure the links, but it's come up a few times. Mainly the issue is that so much of checkuser relies upon knowing your community - like a good police officer is most successful if they are on a "turf" they know very well and can spot stuff that doesn't quite fit. Paid checkusers could manipulate the data but would not as a rule have the knowhow where to go, what it might hint at, what behaviors it might link to, all the dozens of things checkusers as seasoned enwiki admins can draw upon. A second problem is Wikipedia is in many languages. So to do this WMF would potentially need to employ many dozens of people in many languages. Finally there is a lot more than one person's work to do. Even full time you'd need several. I guess (but don't know for sure) that these are some reasons it hasn't ever gained traction. It sounds good but fails on practical value. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your words of wisdom. An administrator who I regard as wise has taken a wikibreak. In view of your wise answer, I come with another question to you, instead of to him.
Amanda Knox has been deemed not notable enough for an article despite more than a year of extensive international coverage. Other accused murders with far less coverage have been deemed notable for separate articles by AFDs. Futhermore, there are very non-notable people, like Fawaz Abd Al Aziz Al Zahrani, some of whose article have been subject to AFDs, never resulting in delete. Some may want to keep memorials to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners despite WP not being a memorial.
I do not seek drama. Many might say "go ahead and nominate some articles for deletion", but I am more interested in seeking wisdom on how to achieve consistency. Wise editor, FT2, I seek a tiny portion of your wisdom. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I can give it a go. I can see why the case might seem like a good candidate for an article. There has been a lot of coverage of Knox, over an extended period, from several angles, and the coverage has beyond doubt focused on her as a person not just the murder case she was involved in.
There are two big reasons it's likely to fail. Despite the notoriety and attention, she is still basically only notable for the one event, and WP:BLP1E says we would normally have an article on the event. Sometimes we do have an article on the person as well as the event, but usually that's when we can't cover the person's life with the event, and their whole life becomes worth documenting or such. In this case it's a judgment call but probably still a BLP1E case, what's useful to cover about her purely pertains to the criminal case, its prelude, its aftermath.
Second, especially for criminals (or alleged criminals) we often play a bit cautious in articles. Do we really need an article on the criminal, when most of what's relevant for encyclopedic purposes is covered under the crime. That kind of thing. So yeah, borderline case but if I were forced to choose I would probably side with BLP1E, simply because there is not one thing of wider notice about her, except the one event for which she's in the press and its aftermath. Caveat, I haven't thoroughly researched the matter or the media though. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your "immediate" proposals[edit]

It's starting to look complicated. Is it not possible to simplify? My perennial fear is that people won't bother to think it through unless it's simple. Tony (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call - better now? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolution to the problem[edit]

Looking throught the comments, if someone were to declare "all the candidates have been appointed", this would not be the consensus. If someone were to declare "some sort of new election", others would be upset, some of them believing that this is an emergency where CU/OS must be appointed within the hour or there will be a massive number of deaths or injury (true emergency).

Choosing either is not selecting the consensus.

When there is no consensus, compromise is sometimes necessary.

Disclaimer: Brainstorming is when one makes suggestions without being afraid of being called an idiot. In doing so, an innovative suggestion may be made. The following is brainstorming.

There could be the declaration that no new CU/OS are appointed. However, the title of "Provisional OS" or "Provisional CU" could be appointed to a limited number of people. The title of "provisional" is to highlight that they are different from the others. They will be under greater public review, have a limited term, and must submit a report of their actions daily (posted on their talk page). In the interim, there will be new elections as a concession to those who say that election rules should not be significantly altered after an election has taken place.

This proposal will be liked by nobody but incorporates ideas of several opinions. Also, it is brainstorming.

This proposal is also among the very few that attempt to reach compromise.

Good luck in trying to find a fair idea that has widespread support. We are cheering you on! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that in the gentlest way, this doesn't work. You need a better understanding of how CU/OS operates and what these functions do. I'll try to explain.
The ultimate appointing body for this community is Arbcom itself (40% of CU/OS are arbs and another 25-30% are ex-arbs). Arbcom has varied how they are appointed over the years, to encourage wider input while retaining its role of quality control and comfort with the appointees. At present Arbcom chooses to ask the community to express a preference between the users who have indicated an interest and Arbcom would be comfortable to agree as giving access. In this case the problem is that the community has not shown the level of preference set out in the election rules. In other words, Arbcom could as easily have set rules at 50%, 60% or anything else when they announced the election and then it would not have been a problem, but the election was announced with a percentage at 70% so it is.
They are trust positions. It's like "provisionally" giving people keys to private data. There's no provisional - they are trusted enough to view the data, or not. There's no halfway, and no scope for "if we don't like their use, withdraw their access later". Adminship to an extent is "they look okay, no reason not to", because if they do wrong then its incredibly rare any lasting harm will arise. You appoint these tools from the opposite perspective, affirmative trust and knowing if they do wrong then harm may result.
So if "provisional" doesn't make sense, what about extra regulation? Well, the issue here is that these tools aren't under public review, full stop. Rmeoval of privacy based material followed by reposting the private material so everyone can agree nobody should see it, doesn't make sense. Ditto, though less obviously, for Checkuser. These tools aren't public tools and the data they work on isn't public data, so the public will not be able to access the material (like they could with ordinary edits and admin actions) to check it. The regulation for CU/OS is largely by other CU/OS, and Arbcom itself (via its audit subcommittee). That's a Foundation policy and it goes to the extent that you can't appoint just one CU or one OS on any wiki - there must always be 2 or more precisely so they can scrutinize each other's actions.
Extra data for you to take into account in considering your view. Hopefully it will help. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I seek not to argue with you. I seek to find a compromise when the consensus does not exist. Lowering the standard after the election has significant opposition. Not lowering the standard after the election has significant opposition. Brainstorming is a way to find a compromise.
You mention that the positions are a position of trust, more so than admins. Admins generally have to get 80% support. CU/OS are lower at 70%. It seems that using the definition of trust at 70% (not my definition but the election rules), only one person met that definition.
Provisional makes sense because it fulfills the "don't change the rules after an election" people but the "appoint them now" people get their man appointed.
As far as regulation, this makes complete sense. The provisional people would just list the results they made public. For example, FT2 could write on his talk page (if he were a CU), "I published the following CU results....CU results on SSP cases 1, 2, 3." This information is already public, just scattered. This regulation would also try to appeal to those opposed to breaking the election rules by having the appointed provisional people be special appointees.
Can you think of ways to combine the wishes of the "appoint now" versus "don't change the rules to get the election results you want" people? Again, not to argue, but to think of hybird ways to compromise between two opposite views. Note that among the millions of WP users, I am the only one trying to find a compromise solution. Hope others will help try. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Brainstorming's a good thing. I hope it's helpful. I'm not in any sense a "moderator". I've set out a framework and useful guide, so the community can consider what's best. The appointing body has listed people it trusts, asked for a preference from the community, but has set rules that mean everyone got excluded. Logic (to me) says that at this point with the exclusion of the one user who got >70%, there are only 3 options: CU/OS are appointed (two suboptions - we either do or don't ask for more community views on the candidates), or CU/OS are not appointed. All other options including any change to the assessment mechanism (percentage etc) fall into one of these 3 cases.
The percentage at RFA and percentage at CUOS is a very different basis - those at CUOS already got virtually unanimous agreement from all arbitrators (or all who expressed a view) and will have been scrutinized quite deeply as part of that. In that sense a fair representation for the trust for CUOS is probably around 95% at Arbcom (> 90%) - if they get one serious oppose or a couple of minor uncertainties, the answer will often be "not now/not yet", and those views will be based on scrutiny.
But no, provisional doesn't make sense (to me) because I can't see what exactly is (or could be) provisional about it. They are allowed to view WMF data or they are not allowed. If they are okay to view it then why would they stop being trusted later? And with all OS and probably half of CU work being off-wiki, and the half that's on-wiki being clear anyway to anyone who tracks SPI, and the wider community unable to do any kind of checking anyway, what's the point of a partial list of cases? More food for thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Part of the solution is to acknowledge the opinions of two large groups (and probably some of the subgroups). Throwing out the election or changing the rules after the election so as to elect some does not have the consensus. Neither does a new election (of course, a new election addresses the fairness and ethics issue). So the brainstorming idea is still the only idea to try to compromise. So far you have picked faults with some of the ideas but nobody has suggested a compromise. I wonder why not?
As far as the issue of term limits, arbitrators have a given term. By giving a short term to new CU/OS then trying to resolve the issue, it can't be that bad because that's what arbitrators are given, a term. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm thinking that's misguided. We're finding out what response has consensus, so the statements you make about what does and doesn't have consensus are flawed - we're presently finding the community's views. You next ask why nobody suggests a compromise, but I think I've explained the issue is that there are only a very few practical alternatives, the rest (whether compromise or not) collapse into those for this one set of appointments. (See explanation under "Some other option or variation"). Last, the comparison doesn't work either. Arbitrators, appointed for fixed terms (with option to restand), assess disputes, cases and privacy functions of the wider community. CU/OS are toolholders not judicial positions (so to speak). CU's analyzing technical data in one case and OS's remove private/defamatory info in the other. Like admin tools (only more trust needed) once trust is given for a tool, it endures until they cease activity or something changes. Arbs retain CU/OS after arbship terms end for exactly this reason. Last, to repeat my observation above, "provisional" doesn't make sense with CU/OS, nor does a "short term". These are trust based tools. To repeat from above, they are trusted enough to view the data, or not. There's no halfway. I think that's mostly why your arguments aren't making much headway nor gaining much support. The role is different from arbitratorship and the CU/OS tools different from on-wiki public or admin tools. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Part of a compromise is to take equal chunks of several proposals. Usually, few people like it but sometimes more people accept it. Compromise is usually not dictating that one side gets its way. It's usually not taking 99% of one view and 1% of the other views, though often politicians will do that to claim a false compromise. Even I don't like my compromise idea but it's better than imposing my idea on everyone else or some other person's idea on everyone else. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, but in this case it's not clear what proposal might exist that is not seriously flawed compared to the existing ones. It's worth constructing proposals amenable to as many people as possible, but I've looked now at the question of "temporary" or "provisional" for these roles and it doesn't make sense or seem to mean anything. Even the comparison above is plainly incorrect ("arbitrators have fixed terms" - no they don't for the tools). I can only repeat what I said above. The suggestions so far don't work for me. I can't see a way to make them useful to the community, and I see their flaws. I'm not voting on proposals but my comment is, these ideas just wouldn't work. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I seek not to argue with you. What I see are drastically different opinions, many of them within the bounds of being reasonable, but difficult to decide without ignoring many opinions. It is easy to declare "I select A as the answer, not B and C, though I've carefully considered B and C (ha, ha B and C lost, tough luck)". It is harder to come up with a compromise taking ideas that are reasonable but that one doesn't like. Try to come up with other compromise ideas! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have, however in this case there aren't any with a significant chance that come to mind. Part of the art of a matter like this is to distinguish options that are likely to have a chance of gaining traction and being useful. Sometimes there are several, sometimes one or two, sometimes none, and sometimes only time will change the communal mood to allow actual solutions. A good test here is that almost no credible experienced users are diving in to propose alternatives. As an example, the only option that has (#4) has so far got low levels of interest - 3 responses and all opposed. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean that I am now a FT2 designated "credible experienced user" or that I am not one? Ha, ha, don't answer unless it's a yes! It is too bad that over 200 people voted yet few are offering an ideas, even an oppose or support, to the RFC. Thank you for your effort in drafting the RFC. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC end[edit]

Does the RFC have an end date? June 29th? With something of this importance, it is better not to say that it ends when someone says it ends. Otherwise, one could say that it ends when I win and continues if I am losing. Of course, if we say ahead of time that it ends some time after two weeks, then nobody should think that we are short circuiting the time period. So an alternate would be no sooner than June 14th but as long as a month.

I bring this up not to make trouble but to prevent trouble! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

funny[edit]

Berghuis v. Thompkins

After 3 hours of silence to police questions....

Do you believe in God? Yes

Do you pray to God to forgive you for killing John Smith? Yes, oops.

That is like...

In the court room: The People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus John Smith. Charged with 2 murders (error in speaking) in the first degree.

Two? I only killed one guy! Oops! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

i suppose i am the only one laughing.....  :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

I replied to your comments. Joe Chill (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you don't expect me or someone else to fix your cites. I won't and that's being lazy. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't "expect" any given person to. My focus in editing was on identifying whether the section was written from a neutral point of view - which directly affects whether readers will get a balanced representation of the topic. The cites went in there quickly with the view that I'll fix them if time permits (if not they'll eventually be put into proper "cite web" format). But the NPOV matter was more urgent. Given your request for a DYK hook on the article, the existence of poor flow, tone, a few sentences needing improvement, and the like, needed fixing much more quickly, so I did.
However, not to worry. Just 21 minutes later another user fixed the cites [2]. Isn't collaboration great :) FT2 (Talk | email) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What you call poor flow and a few sentences needing fixing is personal taste. I like what you did with the article, I'm just saying that isn't even close to a major issue. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!


For adding non-formatted references. This should really be a trout but I'm in a good mood. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Damian[edit]

Hi FT, I emailed you a few weeks ago to let you know as a matter of courtesy that I was considering requesting an unblock for Peter, and again tonight to tell you that I was about to post it. You can see it here on AN. I'm letting you know here too just to make sure you see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've moved it into chronological place because it looked as though the supports might be supporting those additional points. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, sure. Hopefully they are factual enough to be useful. I've added a sample diff so you can see what I mean. Can you ask him to explicitly confirm on the stated behaviors as part of this? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
He agreed to avoid interaction, and I'm sure that will be broadly interpreted, because lots of people will be keeping an eye on it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

Thanks for the heads up - collapsed this as it's lengthy though. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues questions[edit]

Hey - I removed your proposed issues as they were not phrased as "one-sentence questions." Please feel free to rephrase them into questions, or contribute your thoughts elsewhere on the workshop page. Thank you. ~ Amory (utc) 12:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Missed that bit . Okay! FT2 (Talk | email) 16:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, FT2. You have new messages at Talk:Berghuis v. Thompkins/GA1.
Message added 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Berghuis v. Thompkins GAN[edit]

Congratulations, I have listed Berghuis v. Thompkins as a Good Article. Please consider reviewing a nominee for Good Article. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee Sock #I Lost Count[edit]

User:TubingTommy posted on Keegscee's SPI, claims to be Keegscee. I have asked User:Georgewilliamherbert who has been wranglin' the socks of Keegscee previously to get with a checkuser and flush out the other ones and rangeblock, but he appears to be offline for the moment, hence I bring this to your attention. -

Taken care of by Georgewilliamherbert. Take Care. - NeutralHomerTalk • 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL multiple revisions at once?[edit]

Forgive me if I've missed an announcement somewhere, but is it still best to avoid using Revision Delete on multiple revisions at once or has that bug been fixed? I can see you've had this and related conversations more than once, but I'm not an admin so some of it still escapes me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and thanks for checking. The bug's half fixed, ie, the basic functionality is there. Werdna's working on the other half but (with Pending Changes being released) could be another week or a bit more. May be okay but until tested can't be sure. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Berghuis v. Thompkins[edit]

Hello, I've had a look at your DYK nom for this article. I've only started reviewing DYKs (so I could be wrong!) but on first inspection it seems to fall short of 5 x expansion if you want to have a look at it. GainLine 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill[edit]

You deleted an article which should be restored:

  • 02:51, 22 May 2010 FT2 (talk | contribs) deleted "John O. Merrill" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Essentially "Was a partner in a big firm". Would need more reason to sustain an article.)

Your decision-making in this instance was flawed. The fact that Britannica considers this figure sufficiently important to include in its online encyclopedia for children is sufficient argument for the article to be restored -- see here.

Please do what you can to rectify this unfortunate mistake.

When restored, you may trust that I will add material sufficient to clarify its legitimate status as an article.

Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A note at User talk: زرشک#Speedy deletion nomination of John O. Merrill suggests that it may be more conventional for me to ask you to "userfy" what was deleted?
John Ogden Merrill (b St Paul, Minnesota, 10 August 1896— d Chicago, Illinois, 13 June 1975) was an structural engineer and founding partner of the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM).<:ref name="wilson">Museum of Modern Art (MOMA): SOM citing Richard Guy Wilson (2009). Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press.</ref>
Merrill's notability
Merrill's contribution to the firm was seminal. He is credited with establishing the multi-disciplinary nature of the firm.

SOM defined a new architectural approach of team work and total or comprehensive design, since the firm undertook everything: design, engineering, landscaping, urban planning and interiors. Also an innovation, especially given the quality of work and the prominence of the firm, was that none of the founding partners actually designed.

The unique character of SOM’s work was influenced by the engineers who became partners in the practice.<:ref name="wilson"/>

The bottom line—this person is an appropriate and necessary subject for an article in our Wikipedia context. --Tenmei (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be glad to let you have a copy of the page text. I've sent it by email to you.
In terms of suitability for an article, as I understand it, Merrill's "claim to notice" is due to the company (work done by SOM, size of SOM, etc), and also because of the important changes he made to that company. Is that roughly correct? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not know the answers, but I will undertake to find them.
Let me explain why I developed the article about Nathaniel Owings, who is the "O' in Skidmore, Owings and Merrill.
I was invited for tea at the home of one of the hibakusha whose career as an interior designer had been entirely at SOM. In September 2008, I created the article here as a token gift to offer my hostess at tea. In 2010, it is only an accidental oversight that Talk:Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is still on my watchlist in 2010; but there you have it.
The projected "stub" or "start" which results from my small investment of time will become another gift I bring to tea. I have no continuing interest in John O. Merrill beyond what is needed to rebut the rationale which informs this speedy delete. --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Please userfy Talk:John O. Merrill. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I've restored both current and previous versions for you - see here. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

John O. Merrill[edit]

John O. Merrill is not an appropriate article for the speedy deletion process. --Tenmei (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Justification

The burden of research supports the notability of John O. Merrill; and the following is sufficient to rebut any "speedy deletion" argument. In summary, the notability of John O. Merrill is verified by reliable sources: (a) the obit in the New York Times, (b) the article in the Grove Art Online, (c) the article in the American National Biography and (d) WorldCat Identities ... plus (e) the previously mentioned but unused article in the Britannica online.

Notes
^ a b c d e f g h "John Merrill Sr., Architect, Dead," New York Times. June 13, 1975.
^ a b Museum of Modern Art (MOMA): SOM citing Richard Guy Wilson (2009). Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press.
^ "Merrill, John Ogden," (1999). American National Biography, Vol. 15, pp. 360-361.
^ a b c d Lehman College Art Gallery, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), Merrill bio notes
^ Westcott, Ed. (2005). Oak Ridge, p. 61., p. 61, at Google Books
^ Nauman, Robert Allen. (2004). On the Wings of Modernism: the United States Air Force Academy, pp. 72-80., p. 72, at Google Books
^ Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard. (1989). Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering & Construction, Vol. 4. p. 454.
^ "Radical Design Dropped For Air Academy Chapel," New York Times. July 4, 1955.
^ "Residential Work Rising in Chicago," New York Times. February 14, 1937.
^ "Name Consultants for Building Code," New York Times. March 26, 1950.
^ American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, Merrill, ahd1030138
^ a b WorldCat Identities: Merrill, John O.
References

The article text explains that John O. Merrill is

  1. Notable for design and development of the US Air Force Academy campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project in Colorado Springs, Colorado
  2. Notable for design and development of the Manhattan Project research campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project and for the new community which was created at Oak Ridge, Tennessee
  3. Notable for design, development and construction of the permanent US military facilities on Okinawa, including the still controversial Kadena Air Force Base
  4. Notable as a founding partner of the prominent international architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM); and also notable for his seminal influence on development of unique SOM corporate culture
Thanks. I would agree. Notice that it isn't a matter of personalities or defensiveness. The issue was evidence. before there wasn't. Now there is. Specifically, an NY Times obit is enough to suggest notability all on its own.
Be aware that the claim "Built notable project X so must be notable" or "Founded notable firm X so must be notable" generally fails due to WP:NOTINHERITED (the X might be notable but it doesn't demonstrate those involved in its creation are). To put it simply, architects design and help built things, the same way accountants count things and help run businesses, and writers write things. Its the daily work of all architects to design and built things.
The key here is evidence he himself was notable, not that he built notable things. The single NY Times obit by itself is enough to show that. A career that included building some big military objects (putting it crudely) by itself does not.
I put it crudely, not to offend, but to explain in very basic terms, the distinction and significance. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've got the full obit from NYT, if you want to use it for source material. Its not copyright free or fair use though, so I can't put it on wiki. if you want it by email, please email me and I'll send it to you. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer, but that won't be necessary. I have full online Times access. One question remains: What next? May I now post John O. Merrill in main space? --Tenmei (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to write it in user space I'll be glad to cast an eye over it and see what cleanup may be useful. It might help.
Update - left a few review points here. Those aside and a bit of minor copyediting, it looks okay to go.FT2 (Talk | email) 02:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Berghuis v. Thompkins[edit]

RlevseTalk 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:21312 (revision move) is listed as 'resolved fixed'...[edit]

...so I guess we should have a community discussion on whether we want it enabled here? –xenotalk 12:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice to see how it works, and noting also it's still marked "experimental". I've asked if it's enabled on any WMF test wiki. It would be good to see it in action, not least to be able to explain and screenshot it (and point others to where it can be tested) for any possible discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably need to file a quick 'zilla to get it enabled on testwiki:. –xenotalk 12:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
bugzilla:24158. –xenotalk 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, and got there first. (bugzilla:24157). One or the other's a duplicate :) FT2 (Talk | email) 14:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
lol. –xenotalk 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Left it to you to strike one out. I could just see the scenario happening where we both did that, too :) FT2 (Talk | email) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
ha! Go ahead and request sysop on testwiki while we wait: testwiki:WP:RQ#Requests for Adminship/Bureaucratship. –xenotalk 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
← In case you haven't been keeping up on the bugzilla'en, we're currently awaiting a code review for the RevisionMove so that it can be enabled on the WMF branch (or something...). –xenotalk 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop[edit]

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (utc) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles[edit]

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articlesWP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - posted. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and User talk:Nihonjoe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would not have been aware otherwise. Posted at both. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The last point was addressing both points 3 and 4 (which were synonymous in that they were dealing with questionable/good standing). I'll ping you (before the week ends) when I've looked at it properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at the policy talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Mangano[edit]

Hello, I appreciate your comments and criticisms. I know more work needs to be done here, unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to respond immediately to this. My intent is to continue the make improvement to this BLP however, I have become swamped with work assignments. Can we keep the bulk of the content in my user space? I will not move into article space without significant improvement as I find it, nor will I move it without review. All that I have done has been in the open, I have not deleted anyone's comments. I would really hate to start over though. Thank you! (User talk:Lisa Snead)) Cre8tivedge 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talkcontribs)

Sure - restored the June 18, 2010 11:57 version (latest) for you at User:Cre8tivedge/Frank Mangano. Best! FT2 (Talk | email) 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for returning this to my user space. I do see where significant changes need to be made and your statements are fair and clear! Thanks again!

User talk:Lisa SneadCre8tivedge 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tivedge (talkcontribs)

RFC is closed[edit]

Hi, just a note to let you know that the RFC discussion you started has closed "Immediate steps" poll by FT2 and is in need of assesment and the next step, whatever that is to be, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note I sent you email; hopefully things make more sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article on Administrator abuse[edit]

Thanks for your comments. That topic is stuck in my throat and I could write pages and pages about it. Luckily for you, I am rather busy with real-life work so I will just blurt out a few disconnected thoughts.

Well, sorry for this long rant. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Markup[edit]

Hi, Sorry if I'm troubling you, but, I was trying to put an email link on my page, or find how to email another user when they don't have a link, and I saw the link on your page, and I just wanted to ask how you put it there. I will be truely thankful if you can answer me. Zarin87 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Antigrandiose[edit]

I saw you'd posted to Antigrandiose (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I'm bothered by the way he not only uses his userspace as facebook/myspace, but also copies into it other people's posts. Worth taking to MfD do you think? Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with this. Done. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I see User:Antigrandiose is tagged for MfD but not in the MfD - and not only is he using it as Myspace, but as I said, he's copying other people's posts into it, eg from here [3] - should this be of any concern? And bits of other articles, templates, etc which has ended up with his userpage having article categories. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't MFD that one, someone else did. This 2nd MFD is probably what you're missing. If the snips of other people's posts are an actual problem (laundry list or suggesting they are biased or idiotic etc in the context of his other templates or anything) then that's probably best dealt with by mentioning at that MFD, or dropping him a brief note that that we don't (or shouldn't) "knock" other editors that way and please desist. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow...[edit]

... You didn't even give me a chance to respond to your inaccurate "quick corrections." You'd rather just delete something than risk being shown wrong. I'm left with the feeling that I was waylayed, by two or three people, who had a problem with my page that was far out of proportion to the problem that other editors and administrators had/would have had with it. --Antigrandiose (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Like your post here at MFD, this is fairly inaccurate.
Your page contained genital closeups, sexual innuendo, and repeated sexual posts. Your posts included inappropriate edits like this, edits that claimed a term you added was taken from a source that in fact was your own interpretation like this, inappropriate incivility like this, interface-hiding CSS, and posting fake "bot" warnings to an IP user that their editing would be "monitored" and to "stay off nakedlittleboys.com" like this (in apparent retaliation for removing your sexual gallery [4]). The times your editing was appropriate were also equally noted. You had a bunch of warnings by other users and ignored them. You were told the content was unsuitable some weeks ago and ignored that too, promptly recreating a bunch more sexual related content instead.
You'll notice in fact I didn't "just delete". Far from it. I removed the disruptive CSS style in the one HTML code it was a problem (not affecting the displayed content but fixing the layout), de-linked a number of userboxes showing sexual content (but did not delete the actual userboxes themselves), and asked the community to spend a week discussing whether the rest should be kept or removed as is our norm.
I suggest a quick read of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which may give guidance on when this kind of thing can become disruptive. I notice someone else suggested you use a humor site for your humor posts. As many people have told you, this is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia-writing community. We have norms. You have simply been asked, again, to ensure you follow them. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Microformats[edit]

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hi FT2. I closed a RfC today - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_for_Comment_on_Fox_News_Channel. The close has been disputed - User_talk:SilkTork#RfC_close_on_Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard. Would you take a look at it to give your view and hopefully resolve the matter one way or the other. SilkTork *YES! 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation[edit]

As you expressed this concern at an earlier date, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning[edit]

As a long time IP editor, I'd like to know if there was any discussion before you changed the coloring of the text. As it stands, it's overbearing, distracting, and is alreading causing a bit of eye strain. Any chance I can get you to change it back, or at least to something with a bit less contrast? I really understand the desire to grab attention, but this is a bit over the top. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One could probably split the difference and only highlight the first of the two sentences. Would that be better? Or in the alternative, maybe black text on a soft color background would accomplish the same purpose of highlighting the box without causing eyestrain? Dragons flight (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the second option - it draws attention without inducing panic for the casual editor and the need for filtered glasses for established ones. Tan would be a nice neutral colour but I'm not particular about it. Wink.png And thanks.69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Flying humanoid[edit]

Hello. I am the original creator of the article Flying humanoid, which you deleted in May 2008. Could you possibly restore the article in my userspace so that I can improve the sourcing? --Uga Man (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING misinterpretation after March 2010 re-write?[edit]

FYIxenotalk 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on that page. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


RFC on vandalism sandboxes[edit]

As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean Start[edit]

I saw that you created the new 'Clean Start' policy page. I have a question about that policy, and don't know where to ask it, so I there I'd start with you. There is a "new" user whom I suspect is a returning user trying to make a clean start. The previous account has not been banned or sanctioned as far as I can tell, but had been blocked, more than once, for various violations (edit warring, harassment). It has been retired (not active for 1+ year, 'retired' box on the user page), but the "new" account is editing in the same topic area (which is a highly volatile one on Wikipedia), and making contentious edits (e.g. - blanket revert of several days worth of edits , undoing 20+ edits by 4 editors). This appears to be in clear violation of WP:CLEAN START, which says 'a user who then re-enters disputes and topics where their conduct was likely to be noticed (blocks, disputes, disruptive editing, contentious and edit warred topics, and the like) may be seen as evading scrutiny'. The question is what can be done about this? I am not sure a sock puppet investigation is the right way, because technically, I am not sure if this is sock puppetry. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing more, or knowing the situation, see if this helps.
The ability to start again is open to almost anyone, and trying to start again is usually fine. The main thing is that people may need to know about someone's track record to assess (for example) how to handle concerns over their behavior or edits. For example, you might expect to handle a genuine newcomer differently than someone who's been round months, had warnings, and "knows the ropes". So this is more about clarity and transparency. If their editing is a concern you probably have a fair right to check if they are the same person returning.
On the face of it, it wouldn't be "sock puppetry" (even though covered in the same policy) because you haven't suggested that they run multiple accounts at the same time, shut down one account then promptly restarted with another, etc. Your best bet is to look carefully at the evidence - do their edits look the same, is there evidence you could show other editors from their edits or other contributions? Or is it purely a complete guess?
If there is no evidence, then best take them at face value as a new user. If there is some evidence to suggest they are the same person your best bet is to be non-contentious. Ask them by email or on their talk page, something like "I notice your editing reminds me of a user who once edited these pages, are you new here?". Emphasize that you are not seeking to "do" anything nor saying anything's wrong, but as it's a contentious topic and their editing suggests they might be a returning user to the area, you would like to know if they are a genuine new user or a returning "old hand". Don't threaten or accuse, be open, friendly, and ask. Make clear that it's mainly so you know what level of knowledge to assume (for example).
If you still aren't happy with the response, explain that it's important if they are a returning user with "history" in that discussion they need to disclose it. Again cite the policy more so they can check the position (ie to help them) and not as a "weapon" or to attack them. Then see what happens. Ultimately if there is evidence in their behavior and they persistently deny it, and their conduct were disruptive or a problem, then you would need to raise it on the talk page of that topic (is probably best) to ask other editors of that topic to comment on your concern and the evidence.
But bear in mind this may be a user who has done nothing wrong at all, could be a newcomer, and be civil, courteous, inform them the concern/question/issue, but assume good faith in your approach. If you have no evidence then think twice whether you have any basis to say anything. If there is good evidence and you can't sort it out by private dialog, then raise it with co-editors, again in a civil manner.
Hope this helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, FT. There is very strong evidence (in my opinion), otherwise I wouldn't bring it up. The evidence comprises behavioral similarity (editing the same set of articles, from the same POV, often repeating similar arguments, and apparent familiarity and "history" with other long-term editors), identical language quirks (both users are self-admitted non-native English speakers, as well as technical (limited to what a non check-user like myself could gather) which point to the same geographical area and the same ISP. I believe the evidence is strong enough that a CU request would be granted. I could e-mail you the evidence in private if you'd like. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sensible to ask. Would be fine to look at it for you and give suggestions. Email's good. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've sent you some material. (there's more, as in the course of putting this together i discovered that the old account had actually used more than one account (they are linked by the user himself, but I didn't have the time to go over all the other old accounts' contributions- but did find some that link all three). fee free to discuss this over email if you think there are privacy issues. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You have a reply by email. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I wish no adverse consequences for the user - merely that he truly starts afresh, by avoiding the contentious area he was previously involved in. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

heh[edit]

You're really stretching the definition of "nutshell" there! (must be a walnut or coconut) –xenotalk 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs dividing into a nutshell v. intro (you'll notice there is no intro so far!). Haven't finished yet. Want to help? :) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll go over it once you're done ;p –xenotalk 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Have a go. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll need some time for the page to percolate, but at first blush what I noticed was "various pages or discussions related to your conduct that will cease to be relevant to the project " is given greater emphasis than it was in the former, where it was a bit of a throwaway mention ("other pages which affect them alone"). And this was not your doing, but I've just noticed the "Replacing references to the former username with references to the replacement username," <-- I'm not sure if this is meant to refer to signatures, but going through replacing signatures en masse seems to be counter intuitive, no? –xenotalk 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like you pre-empted that last bit =)
That first one is deliberate. A common critisicm (and source of confusion/upset/misunderstanding/dispute) over right to vanish is the extent to which "vanishing" happens and what it provides. Some users believe it provides anonymity, removes their contributions, removes all discussions they were in, removes all sections and pages where they were adversely mentioned (eg on others' talk pages). So this rewrite makes a lot clearer what exactly is done. The pages and sections that are usually deleted or blanked in RTV are those where the user's conduct is the topic of discussion - SPI, ANI sections, RFC, RFAR, etc. We also may delete if asked, their user and talk pages. It's making clear what expectation a user should have, to prevent people coming to RTV with incorrect beliefs about what can and will be done, and equally to prevent gamers seeing RTV as a means to remove everything and requesting RTV as a way to bypass a bad record, when in fact we never have removed "everything". Being explicit on what is actually done for "vanishing", preventing unrealistic expectations or belief in loopholes, and making clear it's for permanent departure only, are key points that were not so clear before (or could be read favorably by a gamer). FT2 (Talk | email) 14:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Does it remove (archived) ANI sections? I've never seen that... –xenotalk 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No reason why not, in principle. If an ANI section covered a user's sock-puppetry or sought consensus on a ban for edit warring, or discussed their real-world connection to the topic, and the user genuinely wished to vanish, that would probably be a fair request to blank or collapse under right to vanish. The section could easily have been archived by the time the request is made, or shortly after. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

← re: "finally" I understand your desired use (i.e. "full and final" departure) but it might also be read as "Thank the maker - this guy is finally leaving" ;> –xenotalk 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's such an important point - a number of people considering RTV have left briefly, been banned, stopped editing, come back, etc. It needs to be clear this is when they are ready for a final and forever decision, nothing less. Both of those words probably matter. Is there a better way to say it? ("When a user makes an irrevocable decision to leave forever"?). If so, go ahead. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know why I removed 'finally'; will think about the best way to say it unambiguously. –xenotalk 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be clear this is when they are ready for a final and forever decision, nothing less. Both of those words probably matter - that it's fixed/final, and that it's forever. There is some redundancy but it needs to be really clear as its target audience is people who may have thought they were leaving on other occasions and then cooled off. ("When a user makes a categorical decision to leave forever"?) if you can think of a way, go ahead. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A user page appears in a category[edit]

Hello FT2: Your user page [[User:FT2/LTO]] may be in violation of WP:USERNOCAT. The Category that it appears in, Category:Periods with timeline in infobox, appears to be a maintenance category, so it seems reasonable to allow user pages to appear in the category while development of a page is proceeding. Your user page in question does not seem to be in active development. Do you think you should comment out or otherwise deactivate the code that is putting this page into a category? Thanks for your consideration. --Fartherred (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. Fixed. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Wikithanks Ribbon.png
File:Wikithanks Ribbon.png
Thanks for the minor copyedits you have made to the ARKBK and Bunyoro articles! Skibden (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Date error[edit]

File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010 - with locator.jpg is from May 24, but the disaster is from April 22 ... whats wrong? Palu (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. The image is a satellite photo of the spill showing the spread around a month after the explosion. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

recap table[edit]

this is totally off in left field, but I like that recap table you used here. do you think i would be worth the effort of turning that into a template for more general use in summary-type situations? I'm happy to do it, I just don't know if it would get used sufficiently to justify the effort. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For pointing out the exception to the topic ban. I assumed there had to be one, but had not seen it. Lots of luck with the rewrite, Sandstein has some good points, but progress is occurring. My main goal is to make sure that user talk pages are in scope (i.e. not an exception to the ban).--SPhilbrickT 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Draupner close-up.png[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Draupner close-up.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD - List of Medical Eponyms Discouraged Because of Nazi Associations[edit]

Feel free to stop by the AfD and see how I've improved the underlying article. If you've still got concerns that you want me to address, feel free to let me know, but I think I've fixed everything, except the title--which I agree needs work and better options are currently being discussed both in the AfD and the article talk page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The title itself is still a real concern. I've fixed most of the remaining issues I can see with the rest - see article and AFD comments. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can you pop by the article again and provide constructive criticism on how I'm using the table you created? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No need - it's fine. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

An award[edit]

TaylorGene.jpg

What started as you bothering me over my tag moving around resulted in great social progress and similarly awesome results in the name of better service on behalf of User:RFC bot. For your efforts in achieving change I award you the Congressman Gene Taylor Award for Progress, ironically named after a conservative member of Congress. harej 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Incubator CSD[edit]

Thanks for restarting the discussion. At this point we needed a new proposal to "wipe the slate" and get something moving. That said, I think it might need an adjustment in wording. The short summary implies that the article has to be stale either way, but the way it's written, the first clause could apply to non-stale articles. Gigs (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording is "stale or unlikely to be suitable", not just "stale". Doesn't that cover it? But yes, do reword if it'll help. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I guess that was the intention. I like it, but you might pick up some opposition since the first criteria allows for someone to instantly "veto" an incubation, with no opportunity for anyone to improve it. That might cause drama if it were widely used without giving people a chance to improve an article that was incubated. Gigs (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
JohnCD's already proposed a fix for that ("after one week at deletion"). I'm fine with that, others will support it if it's needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, FT2. You have new messages at WP:VPP.
Message added 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia talk:Administrators[edit]

It seems as if most of this page was unintentionally hatted. Not sure how to fix this. What do you think? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking but it's not completely clear what the issue is - which hats or why? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's just that there are eleven items in the Table of Contents and only three are visible. I'm not sure how that happened, as it is not evident from the page history. Wasn't sure who to ask about this, so I took the liberty of contacting you. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see...... well spotted :) And fixed. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it looked like an incorrect archiving, but I wasn't sure. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy[edit]

For BLP reasons I have removed, so that at least it does not show on the top version of the article, the link to an "unredacted" version of the document, which names names. If the article gets kept, I think that link should be suppressed, if possible. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gladiator screenshot[edit]

Here you go: File:Gladiator.png. If you need anything else, let me know. Oh, and if you could check over the fair use template, I'd appreciate that. This is my first screenshot for WP, so I might have made some slight errors in the red tape. Dismas|(talk) 05:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You want subtitles, I got yer subtitles right here! Sorry, different film... The time is 1:44:18. And yes, it's spoken. I don't know of a place where it's seen and not spoken. Though, like I said, it's been years since I saw the whole film and I just knew where to jump to because the other editor who responded on the Ref Desk remembered the scene. For the article that you're working on, I think it's better with subtitles. After all, that's what you're going for is the phrase and a still image doesn't do much for you without the subtitles. Anything else you need, just let me know! Dismas|(talk) 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the deletion and the update of the info for the kept file. Dismas|(talk) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Guru Larry's Retro Corner[edit]

The article you defaulted to keep is up again for deleted a day later by the exact same person who tried to have it deleted a few days before. Can they constantly apply to have an article removed, even if an admin has approved to keep it? This person has systematically gone through every article referring to a show or TV network involving Larry Bundy Jr. Which seems rather strange. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If they don't have anything new to offer in the way of rationale and it's tendentious, you can often suggest a SNOW close. But in this case it's got at least some rationale (unbundling a matter that got no comment) and other users don't seem to be expressing a view that it's tendentious, so I suspect just let it run its course. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ever so for your help. Is there any possibility you can step in and comment at all? I must admit, while I've been on here for a while, I'm nor adept at deletion/merging discussions. These articles had the same issues a few years ago too, so it's coming quite a headache. Thanks!!!--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion/Noticeboard[edit]

  • Talkback removed, tracking separately. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Expectations and norms[edit]

Hi FT2. I'm trialling an invitation to edit at Pain that links readers to a simple editing tutorial from the top of the article. I've added a link in that tutorial to Expectations and norms.

It's nicely done, simple and effective when collapsed. Two concerns worth considering though:
  1. Tagging an article as "you can edit this" may imply that others cannot be so edited. You might potentially get strong opposition for this reason.
  2. The template when expanded is way too long and detailed.
Because of these I'm not sure what wider feedback will end up being. But as a concept - it's definitely worth experimenting and trying out! Nice work :) FT2 (Talk | email) 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Both very good points, FT2. Thanks so much for the feedback. I've copied the above to the project talk page. I hope that's OK. Anthony (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Accident or intentional?[edit]

Did you mean to delete my post here? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - the two look like they edit conflicted in the same minute - I was actually commenting on yours (supportively) and it looks like I accidentally overwrote the text rather than adding mine to it. I see you've edited yours since - I'm not sure what the correct version should be, so please go ahead and reinstate yours, and thanks for noticing it. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, it wasn't incredibly important. It is hard to believe that a non-fiction writer who has received multiple awards is unaware of the weasel word concept, but the issue is not central to that discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That thought had ocurred to me too. Seems something of a labored effort and a coatrack. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, "coatrack" is a far better example of Wikipedia jargon. [5] :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I wondered where the post went too... One minute it was there, the next it was just gone. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this seems to be the issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On Beauty[edit]

Hi, could you please take a look at On Beauty? Now there is a third SPA, an IP editor actually, posting that same link (and messing up some of the rest of the article. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked that and the other previous account. The IP is dynamic. If it repeats without unblock being agreed, then any admin should be able to block a reincarnation or semi-protect against IP disruption. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, On Beauty has been reverted by three different IP editors. What would you think about protecting from IP edits for a while? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Semiprotected for 3 weeks. If it goes further, seek pending changes protection at WP:RFPP. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I reported this at WP:RFPP. IP vandal is back. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've put a fairly long pending changes on. Still gives us the option to wack-a-mole with the IP without damaging the article. GedUK  08:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you please have a look at Zadie Smith? Same editor is back. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Drauper freak wave.png[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Drauper freak wave.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Old upload, formal templated rationales now added. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections![edit]

Dear FT2, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar[edit]

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to them. I see we have many candidates in the last day or so. My concern would purely be "will there be time to answer more". Some answers may end up briefer and less nuanced than they should for that reason. My Q&A in 2007 was 370 K long, so I've done long answers on many matters previously (including older versions of yours) that do reflect nuances. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to cut and paste where that makes sense... or comment on how your answers have changed. They have been added. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision deletion/Admin[edit]

Just came across Wikipedia:Revision deletion/Admin when I was searching for something else; seems like a now-redundant old draft. Just wondered if you want to delete it or if there's some reason to keep. Rd232 talk 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - done. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransack (2nd nomination)[edit]

What do you mean by "We do have articles on "multiple characters who share a name", whether related, in the same topic area, or unrelated"? Why should we have articles on characters who have no actual connection?

In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.

Judging by that AfD and the previous one, it seems clear that all that information shouldn't be on the same page, so I'm sure we shouldn't have articles on things with nothing in common but name. NotARealWord (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The example I was thinking of was K-9 (Doctor Who), where 4 completely different characters spread across what looks like 3 completely different tenuously connected programs are covered in one article. Analysis is a non-fiction example where many completely different uses in completely different fields from music to statistics to chemistry use the word but with something in common - the concept of "breaking something down into smaller pieces to understand it better". The topic is covered in an article not a disambiguation page.
In this case these are not unconnected "Ransacks". (For example, it doesn't contain examples such as "Ransack - the looting or pillaging of a city or country" and a link to an article on ransacks of towns.) They are all Ransacks in the Transformers series and universe. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Those K-9s were all robot dogs as far as I can tell. They are related concepts since the subsequent ones were based on the original, as a real-life design influence. Those Ransacks are simply characters from one brand who share a name. They don't look or act alike. They're not even the same species of Transformer (Ransack from the Armada comic books is a Mini-con, a separate species with separate origins compared to the rest of the Transformers). I understand there are articles like Batman of Zur-En-Arrh that covers multiple subjects, but those things actually have a relation beyond name (For the Batman of ZEA thing, it's clear that the one from Batman R.I.P was based on the Silver Age character in some form). NotARealWord (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. You can't tell if they are the same or not (nor could I!). You don't know if someone who's a Doctor Who fan would be horrified to see K-9 mark I, II, II, IV grouped as "all robot dogs"; they aren't all even in the same story or series, they are completely different characters. Yet they have enough in common as Wikipedia article subjects to share an article. Similar logic applies to Analysis, Ransack and various other topics. The AFD decision was because 1/ they are all "Ransacks" and all from the same fiction series/universe so it's not entirely unreasonable: there's considerable precedent that different characters or terms with a common thread (same series, same root) can and do share one article, 2/ there was no clear consensus otherwise at the AFD. If you're still not sure, it's easy to re-check at deletion review. Link it to this thread though. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The difference between the K-9s and the ransacks is that the K-9s were all based on the original. The Ransacks are entirely separate concepts. They don't look or behave like each other. A more relevant comparison is i the article Master (Doctor Who) was also about "The Master of the Land o Fiction". Those two have about as much relation as all the Ransacks. I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot tell if they are the same or not. Tlano is not the same thing as an alternate personality of Bruce Wayne. K-9s are separate things in-story but they're related in terms of as real-world design inspiration. Ransacks are entirely different characters. As I've mentioned, they don't even look alike. They're not really based on one another the way the K-9s are. NotARealWord (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted archives[edit]

I see that you deleted your archives (User talk:FT2/Archive) on 27 August 2009. Is there any reason for preventing non-admins from seeing this? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, as your deletion message says 'Refactoring'; what refactoring was done? I can't quickly see any refactoring being done at that time[6][7] John Vandenberg (chat) 23:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're running for ArbCom, your talkpage history needs to be visible to non-admins. Seconding John's question, is there some reason that you, or I, or another admin should not restore these forthwith? MastCell Talk 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No need. When I archived it was with copy/paste not page move. So the talk history is still 100% visible in this page's history. Up till August 2009 I added a reorganized copy to a separate archive page when pruning the old threads. It was a habit from the days when I would work on a set of pages for many months and might need to refer back to old discussions related to those articles. My editing style changed years ago but I kept it from habit. That's what you're seeing.
You can restore it if you like, but anyone wanting to see my talk history doesn't need access to that page and I wouldn't rely on it. They can just look in this page's history for "archive"/"archiving" with page text search (or where byte count drops by 100K or so). The talk page history itself is the better source, because as a page for personal reference, the archive was not a 100% copy. It's been deleted a year now. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The archive is much more accessible, covering 4 years of your history on one page, and has incoming links. non-admins should be able to access this. Typically when people don't provide an archive, they provide a set of links to all archived versions in the history. You are providing neither. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why anyone would link to the archive, but the link can easily be redirected to the relevant history revision. Also disagree that people "typically" provide links to all archived versions in history - or at least it's not a practice I've seen as a norm. If you sampled editors who remove rather than archive old posts, very few seem to provide a list of links to the history revisions. If they're needed then we look them up in history. Mine had precisely two incoming links in 4 years, both years old now. Suggests it's only salient now, in the context of this specific election, for one week. Then it goes back to being unwanted.
List of versions where threads were removed as old: May 2010 Aug 2009 June 2009 Jan 2009 (2) Jan 2009 (1:long) Aug 2008 Apr 2008 Apr 2008 to Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Dec 2007 Jul 2007 (2) Jul 2007 (1) Dec 2006 May 2006 Apr 2005. Before this there was ad-hoc removal of odd threads. My talk page has 12 deleted revisions, all apparently routine related to sockpuppetry policy and removed by an administrator in 2006 as being posted by banned user Zephram Stark. Apart from that and as far as I know, all edits ever posted to that page are public and in its history.
(Caveat - I haven't really operated a formal archive system nor expected to be asked for one. I don't have a foolproof way to produce one. The above list is generated by skimming my page history looking for where the byte count dropped. So I can't guarantee the above links will show all posts (there may be odd removals I missed) nor that any archive page I created for my own use will show all posts.)
FT2 (Talk | email) 04:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing Behavior at FT2's Question Page[edit]

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that responding to a pointy question by asking for data and suggesting email is the correct thing to do. I also asked for it to be removed. However it's solved now and hopefully all okay. I've checked the data he finally gave, the data at Arbcom is unsurprisingly correct. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Asking FT2 embarrassing questions about the scandals of his wiki-career "has to stop"? Well, why why do you suppose it hasn't stopped, Sven? Because FT2 had the questionable judgment to list himself as a candidate in these elections. People who do that must be prepared for questions, and if their wiki-past is chequered and their election statement full of holes, the questions will be sharp and difficult. If they weren't, it would indeed reflect poorly on the elections. This is very much the time and place for concerns to be voiced. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Aside from the mis-assumption about judgment, Bishonen is completely right here and I concur with her in all she says. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's okay, my mistake, I replaced it with a link to the page history. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Everything should be in page history. Much more reliable than a link to that page (as discussed above). FT2 (Talk | email) 14:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Query[edit]

I spent some time today rereading the OrangeMarlin and Oversighted edits debacle of late 2007-early 2009. One thing that confused me was Thatcher's statement in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2 ("FT2, FloNight and I also discussed the issue of the oversighted edits in an IRC chat on April 24, 2008. Arbcom has the log. Thatcher 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"). That seemingly contradicts your extended statement and previous posts you made, which indicate that you were unaware of any such oversighted edits (although I can think of a number of things that would explain the situation). Could you clarify please? NW (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have a fair memory on it. The machine I need to check it for certain is briefly inaccessible - I should have access back shortly if all's well. Taking note of the query I'll do what I can to make that sooner than later. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tracked down the log now. It bears out what I stated - the only statements are ones that speak of oversighted edits as a completely speculative allegation he could potentially make.
The log I have starts where I'm asking Thatcher and FloNight to agree that his wish for an on-wiki case is granted and the user allowed a public unban hearing visible to the community for transparency, if he wants, because then evidence can be openly scrutinized. Otherwise if heard in private there will be suspicion whatever the outcome. I get overruled because of their perception it will be disruptive to allow a platform - FloNight noting that he was banned for good cause, Thatcher pointing out that it doesn't matter whether there is anything to back up his claims or not, as - if no improper edits can be found - he would just allege material was oversighted instead (or if nothing's found in the oversight log either, that the developers removed it). Thatcher and Flonight then discuss how to deal with him as an obsessive or disruptive user and that I should not worry about him being given a private hearing instead.
That's all that's said about the oversighted edits in that log. As I stated, there's nothing at all that discusses whether specific edits were oversighted or would alert a user that actual edits were being claimed to be. There was no discussion of any oversighted edits, just discussion by Thatcher that if allowed a public case he might claim there were oversighted edits (and try can cause drama which both stated to me, would be pointless to allow). I've also emailed you the April 2008 log I have, either for review or to verify against the version from Thatcher. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a great response to the question FT2, but it is based on your 'data' and is not the right answer. The following dates could be slightly wrong as I haven't looked closely at timezones.

  • On April 21 (F43A818E433D44648BB0569FDCB686CB), the banned user emails Arbcom with a link which includes a crat saying publicly that they are emailing the details to the [Wikimedia] Foundation for review.
  • On April 22 (480dbb5d.1f15300a.0410.01b4), FT2 provides Arbcom with a summary of the user in question, leaving out many specifics that I know he knew back in December 2007.
  • On April 22 (54ADCFC31B35499C86E666B5197CB5D0), the banned user emailed Arbcom, forwarding their email from 8 December 2007 which contained all the details necessary to find these edits, being the first two edits FT2 ever made. FT2 claims to have forgotten that he started Wikipedia on the article Zoophilia. Even if he had forgotten, these emails were a reminder. The original email had been sent to two 'crats in December 2007. Jimmy Wales has also been sent these emails between December and April; I don't know whether they were received or not.
  • On April 24, there were a few arbitrator comments in a separate thread. MessageID 16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657 shows that the problem was properly understood. At this stage, FT2 (48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f) is still participating in the relevant discussions.
  • On April 25 (86CD3F11-2D27-44EC-A05E-3107DCA4965E), an arbitrator responded to the banned user, indicating that the committee would discuss the matter, and proceeded to start the arbcom discussion.
  • On April 25 (481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79), FT2 gave the arbs a brain dump of how he thought the arbs should handle the matter, whilst also indicating that he knew he was considered involved. Another arb promptly told him to keep his opinions to himself. FT2 respond acknowledging that his comments are as a party rather than as an arbitrator.

The Arbs in that IRC discussion may not have mentioned the specifics, but they were aware of them, or should have, or could have easily found them in their Inbox.

And riddle me this; why were you involved in that IRC discussion at all? You should have known to stay well away from this issue. By participating in it, you give up your right to claim you know nothing when the details were right there under your nose. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John, this is getting pretty close to trolling. Thanks for the compliment and for jumping in with a mix of irrelevant emails and unfounded claims, but since the log was sent independently to Arbcom by Thatcher (as far as I can tell) it's verifiable and anyone can check the description is accurate.
Turning to the emails: like it or not, those emails were filtered and that was entirely what any arb should have done. You're suggesting that parties to a case watching their opponents' emails to Arbcom is acceptable. It is not. The community in 2007 and I strongly agreed on this point (this was a "big issue" at ACE2007). Parties to a case should not be shown or seek to view emails sent by opponents to the Arbcom mailing list, even if technically they could.
Asking on IRC that those handling his case give the guy what he wants (a public hearing) is not by any stretch "giving up a right". It's complete fairness and best practice, and needed to happen. That's why I requested that chat. There was not one statement in it to suggest an actual oversighting had happened. That's a red herring. The description above is accurate and NW (who's been sent a copy) would surely say something if not.
Perhaps that scale of integrity doesn't occur to you as something people do. Luckily as it's in the chat log itself, which I gather was sent independently to Arbcom, and in repeated emails to Arbcom demanding the user was given a hearing without my access to his email dialog, I don't have to ask that my word be taken on it. Be very careful not to assume I saw his emails just by being on the list. If I had seen them, that would be a black mark.
Of your 6 bullets -- (1/3/4/5) were all communications between Arbcom and the user (or by Arbitrators on the user's case) to which I excluded myself or was not included in the first place. I avoided reading emails that would infringe the user's right to a fair hearing. (2) is merely a vague claim "leaving out many specifics that I know he knew" Specify please. (6) was my demand that the case were held in a way that minimized harm and gave the best chance for a fair hearing, and listed the factors that could be seen as fair or pro/con public hearing. As a party, much less an arb, that's completely correct (even if others would have appreciated my not being so strongly concerned for the other user's reassurance). The IRC chat was my request to give the user the public hearing he wanted. I was declined on the basis he might use it as a soapbox. There was nothing in the chat to suggest to a participant that this was an actual issue.
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Old upload, query posted at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing stats - opting in request[edit]

Hi FT2. I am writing my own ArbCom Election voting guide. One of the criteria I am reviewing is candidate's activity. Would you consider opting in for this tool, so that we can see your monthly (and yearly) distribution of edits? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I missed something from you earlier[edit]

Hi, FT2, I only just discovered this comment of yours from earlier. Sorry about that. At this point, it seems largely moot, but I've written a brief reply on what little I thought still mattered at this point. Mostly just didn't want you to think I was deliberately ignoring you. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

FT2, thank you for your helpful sourcing improvements to the article Meade Emory. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card[edit]

File:Choclab-cropped.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Choclab-cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Ctest2[edit]

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

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

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SPIevidencebottom[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:SPIevidencebottom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IRC logs[edit]

Gabrielle Giffords[edit]

Editing through full protection[edit]

I know it's just cleanup, but still not a good idea, if avoidable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general statement, SarekOfVulcan is of course correct about the policy. However, this article is going to viewed over the next few hours by tens of thousands of readers. As such, I think that WP:IAR would provide support for wholly uncontroversial cleanup edits and the like. This is an exceptional, urgent situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, and I've already stated such on the talkpage, but I reverted my earlier changes. Perhaps we'll need to clarify this in future... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that admin privileges are not to be abused for overriding page protection. Is that somehow unclear? I am slightly surprised that an admin is not clear on this. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:IAR to make the page good for the many thousands of views it's getting. That's obvious. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You cite WP:IAR as an excuse for admin privilege abuse? That is so the wrong way for an admin to think and behave. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't have a problem with the IP user having this concern. Admins should be accountable for their edits and admin actions - of which editing through protection is one. That accountability is to all users, and the question is a fair one. I have explained my reasoning below, it is roughly the same as Newyorkbrad's and The Rambling Man's. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Gabrielle Giffords[edit]

Please stop editing a protected article. As an admin you should know that admin tools are not to be used for overriding page protection. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords[edit]

This led me to believe that we shouldn't be making cosmetic edits to the fully-protected article. I reverted all my changes post-full-protection, but it all looks a little inconsistent to me. I'd expect some kerfuffle at AN/I about all this... Oh well, whatever. Just thought you should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the above[edit]

Full page protection generally applies to contentious issues. If any user objected to an edit, it would then of course need talk page discussion, but cleanup of sections unrelated to the issue are not usually a problem.

Page protection policy related to content disputes: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus".

This is going to be an extremely high traffic article with much public attention over the next few days. It is also a BLP and requires the highest quality of sourcing and writing. The content issue is purely related to her medical condition after the shooting and compliance with BLP policy in the wake of media focus. The rest is not contentious, and I personally do not intend to make any edits other than quality / factuality / tone. If any specific edit is in fact contentious then it should be reverted and discussed, or discussed first if likely to be contentious. Administrators are trusted to understand this - editing through protection is not trivial.

But "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", WP:BLP, protection policy, and WP:IAR all come into play here. As Newyorkbrad correctly says, this is a case where cleanup is appropriate and sensible. The page is protected purely to prevent inappropriate BLP editing on the question of her death and medical condition, and vandalism or very poor editing, due to its high profile.

FT2 (Talk | email) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update - I am making one edit on the shooting, namely to note she was one of several victims, which better represents the incident. Hopefully not contentious. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that at the moment, the page is semiprotected rather than full-protected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it was better to be open about it, in case the user saw the edit and was concerned what was going on. But you're right, not needed now. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi FT2, you are not one to habitually agree with me.  :-) Could you have a look at Wikipedia:WQA#Response_to_Jehochman and the underlying content issues. You have a good eye for WP:NPOV. I'd value your feedback. Regards, Jehochman Talk 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors[edit]

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight grammatical error[edit]

I arrived at the Wikipedia:Requests for oversight page through a series of links, as I am prone to do. While reading through the page to see what it was all about, I discovered that under the "Necessary information" section right around the middle of the page, there was the sentence "...which can saves time". However, there was (for reasons unclear to me), no talk page for the article to report this. Looking through the revision history, I saw that you had done some grammar correctional edits, and, currently, the most recent editor for the page. Forgive me if I'm asking the wrong thing of the wrong person, but, because of the aforementioned reasons and since you're an administrator, I was wondering if you would be able to correct this error. My preemptive gratitude, WM2 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo, and tried to make it clearer how cases get reported. Hope this helps - go take a look. I've credited you in the edit summary. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I can now rest easier tonight knowing that an important Wikipedian page is now free of grammatical error. My gratitude, WM2 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Details of IRC chat[edit]

Appears to be a post and attempt to engage despite an Arbcom ruling by a banned user (as confirmed by CheckUser), with whom I will not interact on-wiki. Previous question and reply also collapsed too. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, FT2. That seems very likely. --KFP (contact | edits) 19:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping![edit]

See User talk:Risker#Long post is long.. I'm extending the same invitation I made to Risker there to you, and to anyone else you can think of to invite. Steven Walling at work 01:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud[edit]

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anime" vandalism by Russian IPs.[edit]

Hello. Sorry to disturb you. I don't know if TV or anime is your cup of tea, but you should anyway check the following IPs, all of which are trying to put "anime" hoaxes and other misinformation and "connections" to the Philippine cartoon, Super Inggo at ang Super Tropa. I've also noted that users of these addresses (possibly a single person) have also put unsourced information and categories on other unrelated anime articles and several others. Here are the addresses I found so far (he may have used more):

To top this all off, these addresses are based in Russia. So obviously, the vandal surely couldn't provide sources for his edits as the said cartoon (if I'm not mistaken) has not been aired out of the Philippines. So what do you think? Can a block be imposed on either or both of the 92.100.128.0/17 and 91.122.80.0/20 ranges? It seems the addresses are assigned to the same provider. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

IP block exemption[edit]

You’ve helped me before with an IP block exemption. I’m blocked again, it seems. Could you please look into this? --Babelfisch (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is being handled. Cheers, Amalthea 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Has been solved, apparently, but I still wonder what happened and why. --Babelfisch (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It was an oversight. Sorry to bother you. --Babelfisch (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas[edit]

Hmmm...you've made the sentence say that the growth of LV in the '40s was due almost entirely to the Manhattan Project. But the source says that the growth of LV between 1945 and 1962 was that way. You might want to double check the source there. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Source states: "Between 1945 and 1962, about 100 above-ground tests were carried out. The light pulse, shock wave and mushroom cloud could all be seen from Las Vegas. Many times, residents threw cocktail parties and gathered outside while a test was being carried out. The early growth of Las Vegas was due almost entirely to the boost in prosperity it got from the huge numbers of scientists, test ground staff and soldiers that worked on the atomic tests."
The focus of the article is on the connection of bomb tests and LV, not on the history of LV. The source looks like it's making 2 sets of claims:
  1. Between 1945 and 1962 many tests took place, and much partying was had.
  2. The early growth of LV was due almost entirely to the personnel of these tests.
I had read "early growth" as not necessarily being the same as "1945-1962". It could probably be read other ways. What do you reckon? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Early growth" is pretty vague, anyway -- Las Vegas history goes back well into the 19th century, and most observers would say "wait a minute, early growth -- what about the Hoover Dam, which drew many thousands of people into the area?" I don't think the assertion or the "almost entirely" characterization is necessarily accurate, and perhaps a historical source rather than a technical writer source for such information would be superior. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop paranoid censorship ![edit]

Good morning FT2,

I just want to let you know that there is in your rank of unpaid moderators a guy whose skill consists in applying your rules in a stubborn and almost inept way.

Moreover, this person seems to have psychological disorders as he always reverts "vandalism" everywhere, all the time. With him, you have absolutely hunted down a real gem: he is a real know-all! His pseudo is Logical Cowboy.

I think it is very charitable on the part of Wikipedia to provide the laid-off worker with occupations, but it could be nice if you would not impose persons with social misfit upon net surfers...

Thank you in advance,

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.105.92 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easier to see what has gone on with an example or two. Can you provide a link or explanation, and I'll take a look at the actions the user has taken. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia has an additional userbox available for you, FT2[edit]

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/userbox/UserWikiProjectWikipedia}}

Seeing now that you may be the only project member to use another project userbox which is not listed in the project page's Templates section, as none were previously available there, you're of course invited to add that userbox to the Templates section if you wish to share it.

Pandelver (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I prefer the one you link to so I've adopted it, and have merged it into my own preferred style with shorter wording. Good job ! FT2 (Talk | email) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

AONN Records[edit]

Hi FT - thanks for poking at the AONN stuff earlier. The author of the article has started replying again and I would ask you to look at this diff as it seems to be for lack of a better way to put it a little bit crazy. I'm not especially bothered by it but since looking at his contribution history he seems to have done this sort of thing before, a block or more stern warning of some nature may be in order.

As an additional minor note, the only reason there were personal details of any sort in my post was because their disclosure seemed to be in the interests of the sockpuppetry policy. The only details I posted were already disclosed on our userpages, anyway. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to block for a post like that. It's unlikely to accomplish anything. It isn't doing any harm. Let the AFD complete and a decision be made, and see what happens. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ambulatist[edit]

You know, on taking a look at the article, I am not dead sure why it was deleted either - despite my having done that. Whether it was from a conscious decision or a simple error at the time, I agree with you at present and will restore the article with a few cleanups. Some of it does have a slight LOOK of promotional material (the "goals" section primarily), which I'll try to polish up. Thanks a bunch for bringing this to my attention. - Vianello (Talk) 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What counts as consensus[edit]

Hello. I was hoping as an admin you could give me some advice. I am thinking about deleting a sentence in a rather controversial article. Basically the article is about a famous song performed by a living person, but the sentence is about that persons actions and allegations against that person which I think mean the sentence should be held to WP:BLP standards. I posted on the talk page that I wanted to delete the sentence. No one has responded to the suggestion either for or against. Does no response after a month imply consensus about the change, especially considering the talk page has had about 75 edits since I have posted the comment. I want to "be bold" but I was reverted the last time I undid this sentence without any explanation. I don't want to start an edit war. How do I proceed. I tried to comb the wiki guidelines but couldn't find the relevant advice. Thanks --MATThematical (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My wiki email is in my signature, go ahead and post the article and issue here, or email it if you like, I'll take a look. Hard to comment without seeing it. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph, of which the last sentence I want to delete, its in the Born This Way (song) article.
Fans and critics alike noticed many similarities to Madonna's "Express Yourself".[29] While some reviewers surmised that the similarities would damage the song's appeal, others felt that “Born This Way” was nonetheless a completely separate piece of work. Neil McCormick of the Daily Telegraph noted that the imitative nature of the song would affect perceptions of Gaga's artistry, commenting that song was "[basically] a reworking of Madonna's 'Express Yourself' with a touch of 'Vogue,' which is a bit too much Madonna for someone who is trying to establish her own identity as the, er, new Madonna."[30] Ann Powers of the Los Angeles Times, however, concluded that “Born This Way” had an entirely different message from the Madonna songs it was being compared to and further defended the song by saying, “Whether its sound comes too close to one or another Madonna song seems beside the point; what current pop hit doesn't go green by recycling something familiar?”[31] Similarly Rob Sheffield from Rolling Stone dismissed the comparison and defended Lady Gaga in his review of the song by saying, “You can complain all you want about the tip of the leather cap to "Express Yourself," which was just Madonna’s knock-off of the Staple Singers’ ‘Respect Yourself.’”[32] Gaga herself further addressed the comparisons on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, explaining that she "got an e-mail from [Madonna's] people and her sending me their love and complete support on behalf of the single.” Gaga then proclaimed, “...if the Queen says it shall be, then it shall be.”[33] CNN later reported that Madonna's representative was "not aware that Madonna sent Gaga an e-mail."[34]
Here is the comment I posted about why I thought the last sentence was innapropriate and why it should be deleted
This is an article (referring to the CNN reference) that has only one sentence about the incident, and provides no details about any context of the interview with the representative. I don't see how one representative being "unaware" about the email contributes to this article in a encyclopedic way. In fact the article does not even mention the question the representative was asked. I think when or if Madonna or a representative actually claims that Madonna's camp did not send the email (not just being unaware of the email) then a sentence should be added. Otherwise I fail to see how this sentence keeps with WP standards. Is there a WP:reliable source that talks about this beyond the one sentence quote in the CNN article? I'll let people find such a source before I delete the sentence again, because I agree that something should be there if we can get a source that concretely says that a representative refutes Gaga's claim. Otherwise the sentence fails basic WP standards. --MATThematical (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DJ Hollygrove Deletion[edit]

Since you all will not let the page stay up, can you redirect it to OG RON C wiki page. He works for him, developes his website, and his is road Dj? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.73.249 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a promotional website. It is a neutral reference work.
To underline this, our guidelines on redirection also state that "self promotion" is a reason why redirects might be deleted, not why they might be created. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it self-promotion when I when I am writing what I know about the guy? Like I told the other MODS, I did an article for University OF Houston paper on this guy a year ago and felt that he deserved a more credit than he gets!

Nomination for deletion of Template:Derefer[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Derefer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill4Time mentioned[edit]

Referring to the Nomination for Deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill4Time, you suggest that Bill4Time be "mentioned" under List of Legal Software. Would that enable the Bill4Time Wikipedia page to still exist? Marjoian (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, at present Bill4time doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. So a separate "stand alone" article on it isn't appropriate. Other users may agree or disagree, which is what "Articles for deletion" aims to discuss. That would not impact on its inclusion within a "List of...." type topic, as these don't require listed items to be notable.
I see you've added it to Comparison of time tracking software ‎ and Law practice management software, so those are the kinds of lists I mean, and the deletion discussion will not affect them. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
However, the Comparison of time tracking software did present all listed as "notable time tracking software packages and web hosted services" and instructions on the edit screen specifically stated that all listed are to be linked to a Wiki page. Marjoian (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Some lists have that criterion (it's a decision by editors, see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). If a list article has a criterion that it only includes entries that are notable - or that all entries must have their own article which comes to the same thing - then if the article is deleted the entry will be removed from the list. Other lists may include entries that are notable or non-notable if editors agree. Again that's because Wikipedia is selective, and some items may be well known but not be deemed notable for a reference work. It depends on the AFD outcome. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of books[edit]

I got your note on notability of books and would be happy to discuss that with you. Unfortunately I won't have time over the next few days, but I'll get back to you. Overall my feeling is that if reviews on publication don't count as significant coverage - if we insist on some kind of test of enduring for the ages before we consider a book to be notable - then we will have almost no books here. IMO a book that met that kind of criterion would be some kind of sociological phenomenon - with maybe two or three books a year qualifying. This is simply because that's the way books are written about - nobody writes a review of a book that came out years ago. My interpretation of the current guideline is that full, original reviews in important sources on publication DO qualify the book as notable, and that what you are proposing would be a major change. But let's talk it over when I get back online next week, and if you think the conversation should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) we could do that. Thanks for your note. --MelanieN (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your thoughtful note on my talk page. As I understand it, your feeling is that the publication of a book is a kind of news item, so that book reviews on publication fall under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:TRANSIENT or similar policy - and that there needs to be additional coverage about the continuing significance of the book in order for it to be notable. Am I summarizing you correctly?
I don't agree with that approach. I don't think it's realistic - my observation of the literary reporting scene is that even the most notable books get reviewed within a few months of their release and never again, and that requiring ongoing or longterm coverage is too severe a requirement. "Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" is all that is required by the current guidelines at WP:NB.
To sample the opinions of other editors, I thought I should do a review of past deletion discussions, a sort of WP:Common outcomes for books. Taking a look at the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature I find several discussions about books. Examples of the comments at these live discussions:

Arguing for Delete:

  • "fails WP:BK; no reliable 3rd party references; no reviews; searching online databases like WorldCat doesn't show any hits "
  • "Can't find any independent sources that would pass as reliable sources even mentioning the book in passing. The book exists, yes, but no one seems to have noticed it."
  • "Amazon.com and Worldcat show no professional reviews."
  • "Not independently notable. I too have been unable to find reviews. (I declined a imminent PROD to give myself time to check ). The only reliable way of making reasonably certain there are no reviews is to check both of the two professional indexes, Book Review Digest and Book Review Index"
  • "No coverage in independent secondary sources."
  • "I'm finding tons of places to BUY the book, but no news, no other books reference it, no reviews from WP:RS. Too new to be notable at this point. "

Note what these arguments have in common: delete because there is a COMPLETE LACK of reviews.

Arguing for Keep:

  • Well, I couldn't find any arguments for "keep" in the current live discussions. (Face it, most of the books nominated for deletion are SOOOO deserving!) But here is an example of a discussion from a year or two ago (which I credit to myself as a "rescue" because I provided links to significant reviews and thus demonstrated to people's satisfaction that the book was notable). Some of the "keep" comments after I added those links to reviews:
  • "Due to the two New York Times reviews; that's pretty significant coverage for a new book."
  • "Concur with the above, there are sources that document notability."

Further arguments can be found in the Literature discussion archives. Here are some discussions which resulted in a "keep" decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Jewish Mother, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican WhiteBoy. In all cases the EXISTENCE OF SIGNIFICANT REVIEWS was given as reason enough to keep. In cases where the result was "Delete" (aside from the usual self-published nonentities), the reason was often LACK OF REVIEWS.

Based on this, I believe that significant reviews on publication are sufficient to establish notability in the opinion of most editors, and furthermore that significant reviews on publication are exactly what WP:NB has in mind when it calls for "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I think your interpretation is novel - not an approach I have ever seen before, or found in a search of past discussions. So if you want to apply it you should probably first look for consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). If you want to start a discussion there, feel free to copy our conversation over there as a start. In any case, thanks for a stimulating discussion! --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Another thing that occurs to me: if we adopted your rule that contemporary reviews don't count, it would completely preclude us from covering ANY new books, because we would be required to wait a few years to determine if the book turned out to be notable or not. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful reply.
There are two issues, the main one being that it's very hard to distinguish ordinary "new release" reviews, from indiscriminate coverage. Obviously coverage could be either.
In some cases a book or product is launched and gets coverage due to promotional activity by the the publisher/manufacturer/creator or their PR agents. Publishers routinely try to get coverage for their books (as manufacturers do for their new products and product updates), and media routinely cover a wide range of new releases. In other cases a book indeed has significance - and perhaps eventually becomes a prizewinner, a top 10/30/100 bestseller, or has an impact on the wider world.
How do we tell which one a book is? I find myself coming back to basics. We don't do indiscriminate coverage, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and if needed sources don't exist then it is fine to wait until they do.
We simply cannot tell in most cases whether a book at launch is significant or whether the interest is merely due to "new release" and transient (and nothing more). Even coverage in major papers is not really much evidence nor a predictor or a sign. The book (or any product) could fall flat and sell zero or few copies, or gain no traction, despite being listed in the New York Times "new publications" column. As with news, events, and people, brief but wide coverage doesn't always make them encyclopedically significant.
In other areas we handle this by waiting until better evidence exists, or else when it's expected to be notable, we might keep it - but without prejudice to relisting if time passes and it turns out it didn't achieve the notice that was initially anticipated.
All of these apply equally to books. Newspaper coverage of a new release by itself, merely signifies a book as one of the better new publications of the week/month. It doesn't always mean it will have encyclopedic significance. It doesn't say how it will be received or its impact or awards or other recognition in practice. It might be a brief spat of news reports and nothing else. So I think we can either wait until the outcome is evidenced to create the article, or create the article but without prejudice to deletion if the evidence doesn't materialize.
I take your point on past AFD closes, but wary of giving them too much weight. The question seems to stand as I asked it:
  1. Is "significant publication review coverage" enough by itself to make a book notable?
  2. If so can we move to say so explicitly at WP:NB?
  3. If not, what else is needed and/or what weight is publication-related coverage to be given?
Thinking about these would probably help us (as a community) to agree on principles in this area, and clarify WP:NB for future. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
## Is "significant publication review coverage" enough by itself to make a book notable? ## Yes, I think it is. And IMO WP:NB already says that it is. But if you want to clarify that, the relevant talk page would be the appropriate place to try to do it. Please let me know if you do start a discussion there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. What is your response to my comment that according to this criterion you are proposing, recently published books could never (or hardly ever) be listed? Is that what you have in mind, or am I distorting your intention? --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Again: the reason I included the past AFD closes is to show that up to now, reviews on publication have been accepted by consensus as evidence of notability. Wikipedia operates by consensus, so if you want to impose this additional requirement, you will have to find others who agree with you, or convince them to agree with you. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd of course let you know if I did, but I would hope we'd both consider it worthwhile to do so as a discussion point. I suppose my response is, what would my reaction be to a product review, software review, new band review etc - it's much the same. Books are another commercial product these days. Many get "new product" -type coverage on launch (not least because they are promoted and have media columns focused on them), not nearly so many ever make any kind of significant notice of an encyclopedic nature. We already accept that is the case with events, news, people, and (generally) bands, albums, websites, and other commercial products that may get a spat of notice when launched. I wouldn't put books on a pedetal, I'd expect by default, similar logic. How do we know a book is encyclopedic? It had an impact, got lasting notice, won awards, sold many copies, etc, same as any other product of someone's commercial business operation. I don't see us arguing the rest of these can't be assessed except on launch reviews or their brief if intense flurry of mentions.
To answer your next question therefore, try this analogy. A new user posts an article on their band, which got 3 reviews in mainstream press on their launch. You can't find any other coverage and there is no chart info on any albums because the albums haven't charted yet. Is this sufficient evidence their band is notable? How certain would you be? Apply the same question to a new software package some company brought out, or a new social website that got mentioned in a few newspapers on launch (but no evidence of traction or future interest). If 6 months after launch the social website or product then got no further attention at all, would it be notable for getting launch attention only?
As you rightly say, we work on consensus. I honestly don't mind if WP:NB is amended to say "review coverage alone is sufficient" or is sufficient in some cases (which?), or is usually insufficient. I want to clarify the issues as best we can between us though, and if necessary then get eyeballs and become clearer one way or another how it's viewed by the wider community. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't pretend to know anything about the bands/musician criteria here; that's not my thing. But I note that the wording at WP:BAND is identical to the wording at WP:NB and so I would assume that mainstream reviews of the band in major sources would qualify it, yes. The same identical wording also applies to WP:WEB. The fact is that new bands and new websites don't usually get written up in major reliable source publications without good reason. (If a brand new band that has never charted, gets major reviews, it is almost certainly because it IS notable for some reason.)
From your "answer-a-question-with-question" response, do I understand you to be confirming that, indeed, newly published books (and websites and musical groups) should not have Wikipedia articles, no matter how many substantial reviews they get?
We are talking in circles here. You are trying to apply this new criterion of yours to an increasing number of categories, all of which do seem to currently allow major reviews in mainstream reliable sources as evidence of notability. I accept that as the status quo and I don't think the criteria need to be amended, because I think the admissibility of reviews is clear enough as the guidelines stand.. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My reading of policies and guidelines is to be very wary of "on release" reviews of commercial offerings, which may not show any kind of enduring significance ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"). Many users mistake or equate "significant coverage" for "encyclopedic topic", but verifiability, including verified or brief widespread coverage, isn't always going to be the same as encyclopedic significance or notability (as repeatedly noted in discussions). For the sake of future AFDs I'd like to be clearer on the extent to which we take publication or release coverage of commercial or media products as evidence of encyclopedic significance. I feel fairly strongly that we should obtain views and see what consensus is, and my personal view is that publication coverage should be taken very warily if it's the sole evidence. That said, I don't feel hugely strongly on the specific decision such a discussion should reach, my concern is more that we probably should discuss it. Whichever side consensus ends up on is fine preovided it's had careful thought and results in clarity of the area. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Be my guest. I think you and I understand each other's position pretty well by now and further discussion here would just be repetitious. Will you incorporate our discussion into your proposal to amend the guideline, or start fresh? BTW since you seem to feel the same criteria apply to music and to web pages (and maybe other areas), do you intend to start a discussion on those talk pages too? Because if WP:NB is amended, all the other pages that have identical wording should be amended as well. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dropping out for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropping out 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. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Core collapse[edit]

Please see the reply. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You could try posting a request for a review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. There are several astronomers who frequent that discussion page.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

DDR4 SDRAM[edit]

Hi, I reviewed your entry at T:TDYK#DDR4 SDRAM, but under new rules you still need to review another article before yours is eligible for DYK. Regards,  Sandstein  08:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA Question[edit]

Dammit, you just rearranged my brain. I hate when that happens.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for DDR4 SDRAM[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability amendment (September 2007)[edit]

I'm looking for clarification about this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 17#Presumption. Its motive seems to be aimed at common sense in dealing with notability. For instance, a name and a phone number for several years strait in a phone book would not be sufficient grounds for notability, BLP1E articles can be merged to article about the event. The footnote in your proposed wording said "For example, adverts, announcements, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be notable for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources" yet this clause is being used to justify the deletion of notable articles like iPad 2 which neither fails WP:NOT nor consists entirely of trivial coverage. Could you give a modern interpretation of what you proposed and also confirm whether iPad 2 could be presumed to meet those standards? TLDR? Marcus Qwertyus 02:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. Bear in mind that the thread you are citing was aimed at a specific kind of mistake that people make; there are many nuanced reasons why articles may be kept, deleted or merged.
The problem we often have at notability/AFD is that people get hung up on verifiability at the cost of forgetting encyclopedic-ness. The GNG is our way to gauge "wider notice", and as such the evidence used to show notability had to be considered with this point in mind: does it actually show that the wider uninvolved world treated the topic as being significant, to the point that we should record it in a reference work? So a repeated case that comes up is where there are reliable sources, but when you look at what they really show, they do not show what we're looking for, in an article and under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The footnote you point to is simply some examples of the kind of "evidence" we sometimes get at AFD that really doesnt show anything for our purposes.
That answers your specific question. Regarding the merging of iPad 2 - we have a few other key criteria for stand alone articles, of which an old one is, if 2 topics are perceived to better handled in one article than multiple articles by other editors then we don't need 2 articles for them. A good example is that Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors are both notable, both very widely discussed and reported, and there are fundamental differences between them (they aren't the same thing, one has higher speeds, different announcements, 3D chip design, etc). But they are covered in the same article at the moment because despite all of this, Ivy Bridge is basically a Sandy Bridge derivative and for reference purposes splitting the article would reduce its usefulness or ease of use, not increase it. That could change if more information came out. Another example is DDR4 SDRAM which was for a long time merged with SDRAM and DDR3 SDRAM because it was not yet a "reality" in its own right. Once chips were actually created and more could be said, it was updated and a new article written. I am not an expert in the subject of iPads, but the decision to create separate articles, or separate sections in one article, is basically an editorial decision rather than a notability issue.
I hope this answers both the question you asked, and any you didn't! FT2 (Talk | email) 03:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. Maybe expect some reform of that rule. I think that as long as the topic has become a standalone article it can stay live. Anything else would be grey area and up to the decision of editors. Merging typically causes navigation issues if the information isn't localized and would kill readership if Google didn't rank the iPad 2 among its top search results. Marcus Qwertyus 16:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please.....[edit]

take a look at the situation of User:Fittiesonkire, apparently the user place an unblock notice on her talk page and the user isn't blocked at all. Could you please handle the instance. mauchoeagle (c) 20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Already dealt with by another admin - thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RD5[edit]

Hi, FT2. I noticed that you played a major role in drafting the WP:REVDEL policy back in 2009, and you added what is now known as criterion RD5 ("Valid deletions under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete") to the draft. There is confusion about its intended use, and so an editor started a RfC which proposes its removal from the redaction criteria. Since you were the one who first introduced the criterion, I'm sure any insight you could provide would be useful. Thanks in advance. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiGuide RfCs[edit]

Hi FT2. If you have the time and inclination, would you close and summarize Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing? My request at WP:AN two weeks ago has not attracted any uninvolved admins to close those two RfCs. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend not to be an RFC closer -- apologies. Hopefully someone else will? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. Do you know anyone who closes RfCs? No one at AN wants to close them. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail[edit]

In response to your request, I could not figure out how to enable e-mail on my Wikipedia account, but if you have a question or comment relating to one of my previous edits, please feel free to leave a note on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have enabled e-mail on my Wikipedia account although I still prefer using Talk pages for communication purposes involving Wikipedia. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, FT2. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Word limit and BLP and flagged revisions[edit]

Hi FT2. This comment is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. I have removed your responses to other participants from the BLP and flagged revisions case request, because your statement was well in excess of the 500 word limit. As a reminder, the word limit is established in the introduction to WP:A/R/C thus: "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible.") I will leave it to you to re-add the material that you want to keep, but please ensure that your statement does not again exceed the length restriction. Thank you. AGK [] 21:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Article history template[edit]

Hi FT2, I like your edits to Template:ArticleHistory, but are you sure dark green is the best color for "Milestones in this article's history" and the current status? It looks a bit out of place to me. (if you think it's fine, no worries) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I fully agree they need to stand out. I was thinking that blue would be good because it would match the links, but then I realized matching the links would be a bit confusing. Red has the same problem. Green is probably the best choice; it's visible and not confusing. The only potential problem could come from color-blind people.
I have no idea how to make that work. I only have a little knowledge of CSS and HTML, so I create templates by cutting-and-pasting sections from other templates. ;-)
Do we really need a "current status"? Doesn't it tell you the current status right above? (" ... has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria." / "... is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." Or am I missing something? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Color blindness means it's hard to tell it's green. There's enough contrast there (easily) for most people to recognize the text, and see it as a non-black shade so it should still be ok I think. Not sure on the other - needs looking at. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 00:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, guess I should have looked at the WP article beforehand. I'm a history lover, not science. :-) As for the other, I don't think ArticleHistory is implemented before GA anyway, as those are WikiProject assessments, as opposed to community (GA, FA) assessments. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits to the article history template per a talkpage request. Might I suggest using Template:ArticleHistory/sandbox as a testing ground before making changes that fundamentally affect how the readers see the template. Making 20 changes to a live version of a heavily used template seems a bit off. Testing generally shouldn't be done on a live template which is transcluded almost 25,000 times. I wouldn't have thought that I needed to say that to such an incredibly experienced editor as yourself. Your opinions about what the template needs are obviously welcome over at the talkpage. Thanks, Woody (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The template by its nature can't be checked using preview, because the preview doesn't show the section being edited. You have to edit it, save it, then look at how it renders. For complex edits the sandbox would be appropriate but these were not complex edits. The only changes had been slight format changes - spacing, font style, and minor wording - and all intermediate versions worked fully and correctly. As the history shows, the edits took place within 40 minutes and then were completed. Your revert was about 22 hours after. No further changes were made in that time. However I've responded to the important points you do raise, on the template talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"The template by its nature can't be checked using preview": I am acutely aware of that, that's one of the reasons why there is a template sandbox, so you can preview your edits and test different styles, instead of filling up the edit history of the template with tests. You could then invite discussion about your version of the template and see whether there were any objections or improvements before it goes live and then you could have avoided any potential ill-feeling that might have arisen. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Tis true. I had figured that stepwise changes which didn't at any point "break" the template and whose sole adverse effect was to add to its history (not in itself harmful), completed in 40 minutes, would not be an issue to anyone. Sorry if it in fact was. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, changing a template that is heavily used without discussion or any notification (and by testing it in main space) could cause some ill-feeling. I know you are only trying to improve the user's experience of the template but personally, I think the changes should have been discussed first. But hey, that is what BRD is for.
I've left a reply to your explanation on the article history talkpage. Essentially, I think the colours are the main issue here along with the excess space. Anyway, hopefully all can be worked out quickly on the template talkpage and hopefully it can be more useful to readers at the end of it. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:ANImove[edit]

Hello! You created this template. Shouldn't it say "This post is related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved" (in other words, "is" should be added after "This post" to fix grammar)? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Related" is past tense here - "This post [the one which was here but isn't here any more] related to X". FT2 (Talk | email) 17:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean "and" should be removed from the text? HeyMid (contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Foo Bar Buzz Netz[edit]

Hello. A new user by the name of User:Foo Bar Buzz Netz has recently been reverting edits by User:Noisetier, with edit summaries claiming that it is a sockpuppet of retired user User:Ceedjee. I cannot find an SPI for this, and the user claims that you conducted one, and told him/her about the sockpuppet. I am told that you can confirm this. Is this true? Brambleclawx 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check this out
Hi. Your name is used in vain at User talk:Foo Bar Buzz Netz. I don't believe the story but I blocked for 24. Please make it indefinite if it is bogus as I suspect (and accept my apology if it isn't). Zerotalk 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Tentative response [10] and a similar note on blocked user's talk page, with a request that the blocking admin (or any other admin) consider unbblocking while this is dealt with. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Reliable sources[edit]

For medical articles we try to use more reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - and can you let me know which article this was? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

Goofed. Very sorry.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in despatches[edit]

Hi, you have been mentioned in passing at AN/I. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I happened to mention drama reduction to Steven Zhang this week.
If some user repeatedly brings up long closed past matters, and the target bothers to argue it, they just wasted time they could have been spending improving the project, by arguing about stuff nobody else cares about.
Thanks for the note. I appreciate it. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, if users do happen to engage in personal attacks, incivility and battleground activity in a gross or repeated manner, it should be passed to uninvolved users to handle even at the best of times. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanese swordsmithing article[edit]

Hi FT2,

I just have a quick question about the tamahagane wikilink that you added to the Japanese swordsmithing article last week. The tamahagane article was merged with the swordsmithing article several months ago, so the wikilink doesn't really lead anywhere. Is there a need for the link? Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in that case. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Glad I was able to help. I was just curious, because sometimes I find there's an underlying wiki-reason for something like that. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Links posted[edit]

Hi FT2, for what it's worth, I've added a few links to salient earlier discussions that you asked about at RfAr to the prior dispute resolution section. I'm sorry you never got a reply from anyone to your question; I'd always assumed those links were there. Cheers, --JN466 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Jeff Dean[edit]

Thank you for your comments. I intend to follow the correct path. I have asked Administrator User:Tedder to be my counseling administrator, a role he had suggested. I will ask him and others for help to avoid problems. I have started a new non-anonymous user page and will await unblocking before going further. I asked Tedder to "kill" Whoami_24 as soon as it is appropriate to do so. Thank you again for your excellent suggestions. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Insemination central (Bodil).png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Insemination central (Bodil).png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Voluntary deadmin[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Voluntary deadmin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of DDR4 SDRAM[edit]

The article DDR4 SDRAM you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:DDR4 SDRAM for things which need to be addressed. Arsenikk (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New AfD of article you have worked on[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage alert[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion on User talk:Bishonen. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

WT:REVDEL[edit]

What happened about Wikipedia_talk:REVDEL#RD5_removal_redux? It was about ready for an RFC, and I forgot about it, and now nothing's happened for 2 months. Did you forget too? :) Rd232 talk 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Figured it was broadly agreed and issues broadly resolved. Shall we pick it up then? FT2 (Talk | email) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it seemed about ready, and I don't anticipate an RFC being a problem. And it's not straightforward enough to just implement. Rd232 talk 21:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree, it would need RFC. One question - should we set up 2 RFCs, as the RFC draft itself suggests - one for the general principle, and the other (separate) for specific REVDEL critieria which the community may or may not endorse, discuss, or make suggestions? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to RTV guideline in October, 2010[edit]

FT2, in a discussion about some rather specific language that was recently in the RTV guideline it was pointed out that you inserted this language to the guideline in October, 2010. Since there is no apparent discussion about the changes on the talk page it isn't clear to me why you made them. Could you shed some light on the subject? See [11]. Much appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, commented at WT:AC. I'm tired (hard work at the moment) so it may be slightly fragmented, but hopefully helps. If you need more insight can you point me to some specific wording rather than "wording in general"? Thanks. Hope it helps! FT2 (Talk | email) 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding main user pages and U1[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:User pages#Deletion of main user pages on request, where I've pointed out that the disconnect being discussed comes from your major overhaul of the page in March 2010 (and seems to have been an innocent mistake on your part). –xenotalk 18:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As you nobly pointed out, there was discussion of the rewrite, I think we must all have missed it. There was probably something that made me think that was the current status quo, but could easily have been incorrect. Either way it's moot, I agree, fix it. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Zoophiles[edit]

Well, they are mentally unwell. Keepslaws111 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ActiveDiscuss[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:ActiveDiscuss has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier/Ceddjee again[edit]

FYI: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talkcontribs) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Foo Bar Buzz Netz[edit]

The Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) claims that you are aware of the users past account names. Is this true and is there a reason why this user, whose only edits on this website involve attempting to expunge edits by one other person, is allowed to use this account in this way? nableezy - 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the entire background. There is some privacy matter involved, and ArbCom has suggested privately that some of the issues concerned are probably best passed to the Functionaries team to decide how normal editing policies should be balanced with privacy.
Without touching on privacy it's going to be a bit vague, but hopefully this gives the gist of it. The user operating Foo Bar Buzz Netz has for a very long time tried to get action on a problematic issue related to WP:SCRUTINY and failure to disclose significant matters to fellow editors. The Functionaries team upheld his concern as valid. They reached consensus that policy was being breached and certain action was needed to fix this, but following claims related to privacy issues, the perceived breaches of policy continued yet this was not followed up with action, so the issue remained open.
Foo Bar Buzz Netz him/herself is not a complete innocent but in this matter his/her concerns were upheld and action was agreed to be needed. His/her previous and off-wiki conduct in the matter showed above average patience and willingness to follow dispute resolution despite a lack of productive response. He/she hasn't had the support expected, mainly since nobody seems to have been quite sure how to progress it. The issue is now quite old. Apparently patience has gradually run out and he/she has decided to try and take action to enforce the functionaries' decision alone, hence the removal of edits you ask about. As such, it's slightly hard to blame him/her in the circumstances.
That doesn't make Foo Bar Buzz Netz in the right, but it does suggest he isn't entirely in the wrong either; it implies strong mitigation and good faith. The issue that Foo Bar is concerned over should really be concluded one way or another, as it's gone on way too long. Resolving the underlying issue would probably resolve any current concerns over Foo Bar's actions, since he/she might be agreeable to dropping it all, if the underlying issue was finally and fairly resolved.
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this. A user is allowed to sock in order to get other socks blocked? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Noisetter, is User:Foo Bar Buzz Netz allowed to sock as a response to that user's conduct? Is FBBN an editor in a. good standing, b. blocked or topic banned, or c. site banned? And is there a reason why this user is permitted to demand that SCRUTINY be followed with respect to Noisetter but is exempt from it himself? nableezy - 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not FBBN who is "permitted to demand" any other user complies with WP:SOCK policy - that was decided and stated by Checkusers and the other user was formally told it. FBBN is not a complete innocent but he tried to do the right thing at the time: express a concern via appropriate routes. When the policy breach continued, he has taken action himself - apparently trying to enforce what was decided by Checkusers to the extent a non-admin is able, which at least permits some good faith.
The other user is answerable for his conduct and actions, because it was agreed by Checkusers they were improper and remain improper, although now quite long ago. It could be that FBBN needs attention too for reasons you give - and anyone could raise such a concern if they chose and felt he was editing improperly. Relevant policies:
  • If you want to resume editing a topic area under a new account, you need to disclose past significant history in the topic area if any - including sanctions, blocks, warnings, etc. If not prepared to do so, don't edit that area, because other users have a right to know the track record of their co-editors in the topic. Also they may recognize you from your editing style and it'll then be completely public. (WP:SOCK, WP:CLEANSTART)
  • If you vandalize, or get blocked or banned due to edit warring or POV pushing, you may be required not to edit for a time, or to agree to conditions or restrictions, but there is usually a way back if genuinely willing to behave.
These apply to both parties equally. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

cAll right, thanks for that reply. But you did not answer the most important set of questions. The user (FBBN) claims that you know who he is. Is he a user in good standing, one that is topic banned or otherwise restricted, or one that is site banned? nableezy - 23:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FT2 is not at all at ease on this issue and his description lacks some points to give a completely different picture.
1. He puts the whole matter in front of the Arbcom who did not decide to follow him. The version he gives to you is the version that preceeded the case.
2. He disclosed information about contributors to FBBZ, as FBBZ proved in putting a screen capture of his email on the internet...
3. FBBZ is a sock of HupHollandHup ie NoCal100, which makes the "not completely innocent" sounds funny.
81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
@nableezy - I was less concerned about FBBN, mainly because as you say he's only used the account for one reason, to address a lapse elsewhere. A previous account of FBBN does have active sanctions. Now that the issue has is "known" on-wiki and has been dealt with, he should quickly keep his word to let FBBN "fade into oblivion" (per a redacted edit) and make sure that any future editing does not put himself in breach of policy. If his concern happens again and he cannot edit, there are thousands of other users who will raise the matter at SPI, ANI or the Functionaries list if it's a problem.
My advice really is that both should look carefully at their account(s) and actions, and comply with existing policies on editing conduct. That includes "sitting out" or properly appealing any active blocks or sanctions (both have been sanctioned for behavior), not creating new accounts or switching to IP editing without disclosure. It means changing the behaviors that led to any blocks or sanctions in the past. It usually means ceasing to edit contentious areas if unwilling to disclose a past account active in that area. But if either were to breach policies in future then the other also doing something wrong wouldn't be a reason not to act on it. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
@81.247.129.47 - Arbcom's comment was as I stated. They felt it was better handled by the Functionaries list and the privacy issue didn't need Arbcom review. That question was the reason for the request. Their response was as I described above. Your other point is about a confirmation of checkuser finding on a sock check backed with behavioral evidence and diffs. You can find literally hundreds of cases in the archives where Checkusers routinely examine behavioral and CU evidence and confirm openly that the stated accounts are to a high certainty operated by the same individual. Nothing unusual there at all. Whether a concern was brought to Checkuser attention on-wiki or by email, or any other way at all (see policy) doesn't affect this. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but no. If FBBN is in fact NoCal100, an account that has amassed an impressive number of sockpuppets whose purpose has been to harass other users (including, among others, myself), a multiple times banned editor, who himself has repeatedly violated RTV and SCRUTINY, and you know this(!?!?) that is a much bigger problem than a user whose only active block is one imposed at their own request (Ceedjee remains unblocked here, Noisieter is blocked at their own request) "evading" said self-requested block as an IP. Any edit by NoCal on Wikipedia is violating multiple policies, and an ArbCom imposed topic ban (which was imposed on two of his accounts in one ArbCom case). Do you know what prior accounts FBBN has used or not? He has said that you are aware of his identity. Is this true? If so, is it NoCal100? I have asked several times now, do you know what the prior accounts of FBBN are? And is he a banned user? And do you know if he has any other active accounts? nableezy - 01:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to answer these questions? nableezy - 15:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but later on today. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This was a user I have heard from in just one context - concern over another user. Talk was limited to that one issue. His statement that I "know" his identity should be read as meaning, I know at least one of his prior "proper" user accounts before FBBN, which is correct because he originally emailed me using wiki-mail which reveals the senders username. That account was not NoCal though. (For completeness - he also had names in email headers but they could be meaningful or pseudonyms, and they aren't public anyway.) FBBN is a more recent account and did not initially identify himself as the same user.
The core work on this case and the formal emails to the other user took place long before the creation of the FBBN account and off-wiki, when points like these weren't a visible or central issue. Noisetier claimed early on that if there was a complaint it came from a "notorious" user "NoCal" and I did not ignore this allegation. The very next day I replied to Noisetier:
"If you feel another editor is a reincarnation of a past user, or is evading a block, ban or restriction using a new account, then I would look at evidence of this equally, as well. If you think you have such a concern and want advice on what evidence is helpful or how to lay it out, ask." (Quoting my own email is fine!)
Other Checkusers, informed and more familiar with WP:ARBPIA, also didn't comment about any basis of concern. The concerns about Noisetier were well evidenced from diffs, valid, and endorsed by multiple Checkusers. Even if the user raising them had been blocked there isn't any rule stopping blocked users from asking Checkusers or the Functionaries list to review evidence of a WP:SCRUTINY breach. So NoCal was probably a bit of a distraction in the context.
I've tried to avoid getting too deep into this mess other than getting clarity on the SCRUTINY issue, since I am not focused on I-P disputes generally. If FBBN is an on-wiki issue then you already have my thoughts on handling it, as do the Checkuser team (by email). FT2 (Talk | email) 01:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account[edit]

Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Biting?[edit]

  • Me? Hey... to be frank, the newbie was looking at Special:RecentChanges and SPAMMING the many newly registered accounts without bothering to look first into their edits before deciding which welcome template to use. I noted the one who was making a nonsensical edit on the page of Philippine Army and the newbie welcomed him nonetheless. Being a member of welcome committee, I think I was already going quite easy on the newbie. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Fluffernutter got there too and said the same, only stronger. AGF aims to figure where someone's at and give them the benefit of the doubt if reasonable. It's uncommon but not unreasonable that this might be a new user who saw welcome templates and thought "I can be helpful that way". It doesn't hurt anyone to initially assume that. A nice first step could be to acknowledge what they are trying to do and explain why it's a problem, then encourage them to gain more experience so they aren't put off. If they still continue then a more direct followup could happen saying that it could cause problems and asking them to stop until they have more experience.
The concern was that with the best of intentions, your post dived in a bit hard - "why are you SPAMMING? Do you have hidden agendas we should know of? Artificially inflating your edit count by spamming without explicit permission is not okay". That assumes the user's here to spam, and virtually implies a negative motive, before giving them a chance or asking nicely. It sounds (even if it's not what you meant at all) that nobody except official approved welcomers is allowed to be friendly and welcome people. Do it gently, then watch and see if they respond or if a stronger word is needed. :) FT2 (Talk | email) 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Granted, I'm a cynic with the newbies (not all but some!) and I should have been more tactful with newbies but it is also exactly these newbies we are having our daily problems with on the pages of Philippine-related articles (Philippine Navy, Philippine Army, Philippine Air Force, etc etc). Vandalism, hoaxes, inflating figures, you name it! And of all the people the newbie had to welcome, he did so for a WP:SPA~! You'd noticed that's where my attention turned to him but not before that because he was never on my radar, to begin with. Why not AGF my effort? Am I not here to help? You guys all talk about don't bite the newbies, what about biting the oldies?? FWIW, Fluff should have been reprimanded or defrock for piling on and biting me! Anyway, I'm not the least surprised at how this had turned out, Admins stepping on another editor to climb even higher, correct me if I'm wrong in my perception now, that's how you guys are making the oldies feel these days. Yes, I'm not the only one who feels that way! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Relax, seriously. This isn't that sort of thing. Yes he greeted an SPA. I doubt he checked what people edited, he's not experienced enough to think of that, so he greeted a bunch of people including someone who should have got a warning. Bad motivation? Probably not, probably best of intentions for all that one can tell. As posted on that page, you're not being bitten, and he's not being given a flower of complete perfection. He's had it explained what the issue is that you spotted, in a way that acknowledges he probably meant well and doesn't assume or deter him, and you got a couple of comments that 2 others felt your wording was a bit harsh, so that you can word such posts gentler another time and still have the desired effect without deterring a newcomer if they mean well. If you feel you want to see that as "admins v oldies" or "you guys" or "doing it to climb higher" then please think again, anyone can comment on anyone, and often do. In the gentlest way possible, understand all this says is a couple of people figured you can get the effect you want without being harsh. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • See the continued harassment on my talk page? When I saw your response on the newbie's talk page, I did read between the lines and knew better than to reply after that but having someone piled on right after it was uncalled for! Thus my retort to you above, "biting of newbie is not allowed but biting of oldie is allowed?" Come on, how ambiguous can the meaning of AGF be on the part of Admin when some don't adhere to the spirit, and instead focusing on it in name? Granted, you've pointed out my mistake and that I should have been tactful, I accept that. On the other hand, having someone pile on right after that is inviting things to go on in a nasty circle, see WP:Assume good faith#Accusing others of bad faith. I don't give a fuck about the whole newbie blunder now but think about the long term consequences of other Admins constant blabbering of oldies must AGF this, AGF that. Isn't that an invite to more ill-feelings and bad karma? Think about it, man. Seriously I mean, you did great but its the others whom I've lost respect for, totally. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Skype[edit]

Hey there. I'd like to discuss the details of your proposal with you, figure a voice chat is probably the best way. Let me know when you're availiable for a Skype chat. I've got a few ideas as well that perhaps we could form some sort of working proposal to go with and present to the community. Talk soon. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The inadequecies and future of dispute resolution[edit]

Hullo FT2, I read with interest your comments here on dispute resolution, and remembered an engaging IRC discussion on the topic earlier in the year. I wonder if you would be at all interested in writing a Signpost op-ed on the matter to provoke further reflection and debate? Regards, Skomorokh 06:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's a long term thorn in the project's side, and really should have moved on and improved after this many years. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceejee/Alithien/Balagen yet again?[edit]

Hi, I recently read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier/Archive, and I'm pretty certain this blocked user (Ceejee/Alithien/Balagen) is back again, this time as User:81.247.93.126. Same Belgium based ISP, same old POV pushing... Marokwitz (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Could very well be, but I'm not an I-P topic specialist and so I can't give a firm view. I suggest posting the evidence at WP:SPI and ask for views. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
See [13] Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

FT2- You've previously noted that Noistier must either disclose his previous IDs, leave the topic area, or be blocked. He's chosen to be blocked, but continued to edit around the lock by editing as an IP. Recently his block was lifted. Your intervention is now needed. Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"the account is relatively benign"[edit]

So it's okay for banned and blocked editors to sock so long as they're "relatively benign"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read the pages in full, the point I make is that his conduct is being used as a distraction from Noisetier's, and that's not okay. As I have said on this talk page, and in emails from 2010 and 2011, and in Noisetier's SPI case archive, if there is a concern over FBBN then anyone may act on it, but that's separate. It has no relevance to the question of disclosure or sock policy breach by Noisetier - and the Noisetier issue is being kept "clean" - the Noisetier SPI page is about Noisetier, not about other editors and should stay that way. To repeat to you what I have said before (and others have too) - if you feel action is needed about FBBN then we have policies and norms to do so, you don't need my say-so to do anything. My formal involvement in the case has been in considering how to address the disclosure issue, presenting evidence of the disclosure issue, and seeking consensus on that point. I have not chosen to block either party despite both acting against our policies, preferring to deal with that aspect only and leave any blocks for others. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And in related news, your name is mentioned here. nableezy - 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello FT2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey


It appears that User:HeadleyDown with a sock/meatpuppet is back at NLP page[edit]

I've raised this at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it - it isn't appropriate content given its links. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You (or another admin) probably needs to go through the anon's other edits - such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Encyclotadd&diff=prev&oldid=458320685 - because the same links are spammed around William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you've asked at ANI - many eyeballs make light work and I'm working here at the moment. Can the rest be left for others, as there may be quite a few of them? if not I'll try but it could be a while.
To 76.243.106.37 - the removal is because we don't do "outings" or post this kind of info here - "Wikipedia is not a battleground" means when others start a battle (or continue it after 6-7 years as Headley has), even so we try not to "battle" back but to minimize disruption. So some kinds of external links, claims etc cannot be left standing on Wikipedia's pages, even though obviously they would be interesting to read. I wanted to explain that in case you weren't sure what to make of their removal. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Yes, I posted the same links on many of the other users' talk pages... because I don't want to see them go through the same misery that HeadleyDown put the previous editors through in years previous. So sue me! 76.243.106.37 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. It's the classical problem of having to live up to a higher standard, against those who don't. The information matters, but as a wiki we need to generally keep what have become known as "attack links" off it - and thats so even if the person they address were indeed a proven hard-core abuser. It does make fighting abuse tough, but not impossible. For example, a person defamed by HeadleyDown would have a legitimate right to take legal action, but we as a community very likely would not do so. They have a right legally to post his personal information on a blog, but we as a community have taken a view it should not appear on our public wiki. The Foundation has a right to seek a court order to prevent a heavy abuser accessing the site for which that information may help, but individual wiki editors don't have that right.
None the less if the information is valid, those defamed may wish to privately know who their defamer is - it's a well established legal right to the point that one can readily get a court order to name the person behind a genuinely defamatory or harassing IP (it's happened for blogs, twitter etc already). The community (or trusted users such as Checkusers and Arbitrators) may wish to know it if it will help them identify other socks and directly reduce editing abuse. But we don't want any part of any ensuing off-site battle, and we would wish to avoid Wikipedia being used to fuel any part of it.
That said, the good faith and intention is appreciated. Posting links to his alleged personal info isn't likely to help directly in any way I can see though, and those links have to be removed (unless actually serving a project purpose and within project approaches which doesn't seem to be the case here). It's tough to act to a higher standard, especially against someone with this kind of track record, but hopefully this explains why. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I suppose. I just saw a repeat of the same old soap opera developing -- the same arguments returning-- different details, but the same form ... the POV editors dragging in dubious citations and then crying Assume Good Faith, etc, while not showing assumptions of good faith to anyone else. I look at the talk pages for other pages, and I don't see these kinds of arguments, not even on controversial subjmects such as Joseph McCarthy! 76.243.106.37 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have checked the evidence out myself a bit. If you want to email to discuss any of this, do go ahead. But our policy is that issues of "user X = person Y" should never be treated as confirmed on the public wiki. You'll find this in Arbcom archives, cases where we know perfectly well who users X and Y are but all we say is "Users X and Y are individuals with a personal interest in the topic". The reason being, the rest just doesn't matter for public wiki editing purposes. At the end of the day the point is, even if the knowledge was perfect and confirmed, how would knowing HeadleyDown is person X rather than persons Y or Z help us prevent editing abuse of the wiki? At that point - and only at that point and for that purpose - might it be relevant for a few trusted users to have the formal evidence, off-site. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, in this case, knowing an identity is useful. [Redacted some personal info and evidence]. Basically, we now have the smoking gun as to WHO HeadleyDown actually is. Knowing WHO he is could make future sockpuppet confirmations go faster -- as we have now have information about the puppetmaster (whose various names sometimes reflect part of his life experience [redacted]).
[Other stuff redacted]. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I was serious, we really as a community try to avoid this kind of post on-wiki. If you want to discuss the evidence, by all means create a temporary Wikipedia account with email enabled - my email link is in my signature. But this kind of stuff should not go on-wiki, even if it might pertain to an alleged identification of a notorious abuser, dishonest person, and defamer. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SP thoughts[edit]

Hullo there, any more thoughts about what we discussed? Regards, Skomorokh 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping. Skomorokh 08:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

DSM-5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Normality

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

NOT and stuff[edit]

Hi FT2, I just wanted to let you know, it's not that I disagree with you: I don't disagree with what you are saying - I disagree with the change. If we were to look at things logically, wp:censor wouldn't be needed at all. Everything in it is covered by properly using other policies: "is it relevant, cited to reliable sources, included in a fashion that does not portray a bias or push a POV?" Alas, that's not how people work, and the changes to wp:censor were made in response to that. IIRC, they were done (roughly a year and a half ago, give or take) in response to the belief that clarification was needed because of the Muhammad images and Scientology "issues" that arose. Inotherwords, done with a reason because even though policy already covered such, it wasn't enough. And currently, it still doesn't seem to be. We've got editors trying to censor articles on abortion, images from Muhammad, articles on Islam and Muhammad, articles on Christianity (and various sects thereof) due to religious beliefs even with such spelled out in wp:censor. Do we really need to have laws telling people that murder is wrong? Perhaps not in a world of fully logical or fully compassionate people. This case is somewhat similar as beliefs are a strong thing. And many people do not equate their beliefs with "organization" or any other such wording. As it is, there is a multi-front campaign going on (which you may have noticed already) to change wp:censor to allow censoring of content that is religiously objectional. If anything, due to the nature of humans as we are, I'd suggest making sure it covers as many major permutations as possible. And currently, the two biggest are religion (personal religious beliefs as well as the beliefs of a religious organization) and politics/nationalism. I'd propose policy should generally be written to spell out things for those who need it clearly defined for them (hence the existence of wp:censor at all) - as opposed to thinking that people will look at all the policies and guidelines detached from emotion and bias. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


I see what you're saying but I disagree. WP:CENSOR says, we don't omit, avoid or remove content because it's offensive or undesirable to any external party or editor. We omit, avoid or remove content only if it's judged by editor consensus to improve the quality of our reference information by doing so. This might be by adding a positive (eg it adds good knowledge, it's a better image), or by removing a negative (eg it was poorly chosen or tended to breach an editorial policy, so that removing it improves our reference material or policy compliance). It might be by explicit consensus (a discussion) or implicit consensus (BRD and nobody reverts or objects).
What you're citing is closer to NPOV/NOR, where we are removing material not because it meets our editorial criteria but we don't like it, but because it isn't of encyclopedic quality in the first place so it breaches 5P ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia").
Of course they do all overlap, eg one can cast NPOV/WEIGHT as a kind of censorship policy ("when do we censor fringe views") or WP:V ("when do we censor less well reported information") if one wanted. So they do blur and overlap, but overall WP:CENSOR can be very direct and simple: We remove material because it can be improved, doesn't meet our policies, or is legally problematic, not because it breaks some external rules or some kinds of people want us not to show it.
I'm in favor of WP:CENSOR explaining the key point - we don't censor because you don't like it or you believe it should be secret. We do remove material for other reasons though and here's an outline of when you may expect to see material removed.
If you do want to include "religions" then try this: - "Wikipedia is not a member of any organization, religion, or political group, so rules by other bodies which are binding on their members carry no weight in any discussion within Wikipedia".
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Hmmm, I see what you are saying. I am kinda equating "my POV (ie: beliefs, religious, political, offense level) is this" combined with relevance, and I can see how it's not a full fit, now that you mention it. On the whole objectional material stuff, I've got no idea how to ever truly "win" that (ie: figure out how to come up with something that works for everyone). People's opinions, even without religion or politics in play, are too divergent. It's ironic in a way that one of the biggest strengths of Wikipedia is the diversity that causes that - and that it's also what causes some of the greatest conflicts. ;-)
As for the change above, I think that's virtually perfect. Though I'd suggest "[...]in any article or discussion within[...]" (itals only to indicate added text) - and thanks for the response. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS[edit]

Hello FT2, thanks for a great feedback you gave me on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS. I've implmented your suggestions and found additional references. I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this. I'm not sure if I cited refrences 100% correct (research papers and workshop materials).--Timeport101 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, FT2. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 16:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image use[edit]

Hi FT2. If you think there is a problem with the way Wikipedia uses controversial images, would you mind summarising concisely what you think that problem is for me here? --

Deletion review for 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Question for you.[edit]

Found at [14]. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia Needs Marketers[edit]

Hi FT2. Thanks for the link on my blog post on how COI contributors can improve Wikipedia. After your post I spent hours culling through the history of this policy discussion and resolved that a more informal community-approved certification-based approach had not been discussed and seems like it could address the significant issues of a formal policy that would encourage/endorse paid writing more broadly than is appropriate.

I posted my pitch to Jimmy Wales on his Talk page, since he was the primary advocate against paid writing policies in 2009, for - I think - very good reasons after reviewing the detailed discussions. A certification model offers a more compelling alternative I think than policy. Instead of banning or encouraging anything, it just sets up a model where paid-for contributors are still more motivated to support Wikipedia's goals than that of their clients - in a way neutralizing their COI all-together.

If you don't hear from me, you'll know that Jimmy executed his threat to ban a user he finds out is paid. Still - if you feel like continuing the discussion, I've started it on Jimmy's talk page.

King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

please discuss the Higgs at the Higgs talk page[edit]

See Talk:Higgs_boson#What_is_a_lead.3F. Other people than you and i may wish to discuss this. Boud (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

RevDel RfC?[edit]

Hey, FT2. I noticed that despite all of our discussions at WT:REVDEL last spring, no changes ever occurred as far as the RD5 issue goes. Perhaps this is because, of the principals in the discussion, I am no longer around much and Rd232 rode off into the sunset. Regardless, I think we should an open a RfC on this issue once and for all. Shall we get the ball rolling? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes.
One thing, because the discussion's stale let's briefly both look at the past discussion to re-check that we're both still comfortable with presentation for RFC and the question to ask (as I remember it was all, or almost all, done). Re-check it's clearly described so participants will not misunderstand the actual aim of the RFC. Then do it. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Silk Road[edit]

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific and link a page or transcript or something? --Gwern (contribs) 01:22 16 December 2011 (GMT)

I was listening to today's SOPA markup hearing live at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html. As a public hearing it'll be reliably sourceable to the official transcripts of that hearing when published, and can be verified in the meantime by anyone who can locate and listen to the video or audio of the hearing. I think I have a specific time to within a few minutes: 17:47 EST (22:47 UTC), because my browser history shows that as the time I googled "silk road" to find out more.
I started this draft 25 minutes later at 18:13 EST (23:13 UTC) before realizing I'd clicked the dab page for "Silk way" not "Silk road" and an article existed, at which point I added the cite to the article.
So I'm pretty sure it's easily verifiable to official sources. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Higgs boson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativistic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Diastole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Notation
Higgs boson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Empty space
Systole (medicine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Notation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours[edit]

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

  • The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
  • An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
  • An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

May I ask for your assistance?[edit]

Hi,

Are you still interested in the idea of at least some non-admins being able to view deleted pages? I understand that the proposal was shot down previously by foundation counsel; however I believe I have at least two possible answers to their concerns.

One possibility is to make this prospective (apparently the antonynm of retrospective although I'm not so sure) - that is to say that only edits deleted after its implementation can be viewed. For revisions such as libelous edits or copyright violations and so on, there can be a hard delete, lying some way between this soft delete and oversight, which will function just like a present deletion. Admins could also have the power to toggle a deletion from hard to soft (or to undelete) - so selected deletions made before this feature is implemented could be made soft.

The second possibility is to introduce a procedure somewhat like RFA where users are given permission to view deleted edits by the community. As admin privileges are currently granted not just based on trust in general, but also on trust that the tools will be used appropriately, there is a much greater pool of users who would be eligible to be given this permission.

And of course, it is perfectly possible to use both of these systems at once.

I have cross posted this to a few users who were active in the discussion in 2008 - I don't feel this is a violation of CANVASS because I have not made the proposal myself - the reality is I need an experienced Wikipedia with some "street cred" to make it. I already attempted to steer a discussion of a similar proposal this way, but sadly that discussion is irretrievable (see here - or even better, don't!). Because I have posted this to a few users, I would be greatful if you would reply at User_talk:Egg Centric/Proposal and perhaps we can get a discussion going!

Thank you!

Egg Centric 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - silly me, I forgot to link to the original discussion in 2008. Here it is: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Straw_poll_for_view-deleted

It's had some discussion in the background, and I know a couple of people at WMF are considering what's possible but it may take some time, I'm not altogether clear why there's an issue myself but I do know it's being revisited at some point and I hope to get a better idea then. Until that happens, no point really asking for a community review, best be patient. I'll try to get some info on it but it could take time. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, look forward to hearing what comes next! Egg Centric 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Double jeopardy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Abrogation
Murder of Stephen Lawrence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Abrogation
Private prosecution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Abrogation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Murder in English law[edit]

Hello. I have undone one of your edits. Liability to custody for life depends on age at the time of conviction as well as at the time of the murder. Suppose, for example, that a person is aged 19 when he commits a murder. If he is aged 20 on the date on which he is convicted he will be sentenced to custody for life, as you have written. But if he is aged 22 on the date on which he is convicted, he will not be sentenced to custody for life, as you have it, but will instead be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The reason for the "three bullets" that were employed in the article is that I could not find a way to accurately state this in a single sentence. James500 (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not say that these sentences are "legal terms". I have never heard that expression used in this context. In light of its usual meaning, I do not think it is a good idea to use it in that article.
The sources are also phrased as commands. The word "used" seems to me to suggest that these commands are, in actuality, always followed. The sources are not capable of supporting that. Conversely, that word does not seem to me to clearly indicate that there is a command in the first place. And it is the command, and not the practice, that the article is concerned with. I used the word "must" because there is a case that says that "'shall' means 'must' not 'may'". Archbold and Halsbury also use it.
I am not convinced that custody for life and imprisonment for life are available only if it "appears to the court" that the offender was aged 18 or over at the time of the murder. Just looking at the face words of the Act, I think that they might be available in a case where the court has no idea how old the convicted person was at the time of the murder, and only knows that he is now under or over 21. I think that we would be wanting to cite a case on that point before saying something like that.
I think that "perpetrator" is not usually used in England and Wales and that "offender" is more likely. I might run an advanced search on Legislation.gov.uk to check this.
I don't think that the new style proposed is an improvement in any way at all. In fact, I don't see any need to change the style at all. I am tempted, apart from inaccuracies, to revert the changes to the passages in question with the rationale "purely stylistic change that adds nothing". James500 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Indictments[edit]

The Indictment Rules 1971, according to Archbold, have the words "statement of offence" and "particulars of offence" as headings, and not the way you have them, and there is no colon. (Both headings and the actual statement of offence are also supposed to be centered but I do not know how to do that.) James500 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Not sure I agree though, so I'm copying this to the talk page (so others can comment too) and will comment there shortly. Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do[edit]

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Murder in English law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Civil law, Provocation, Lord Hope and Dignitas
Born alive rule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to King's peace and Lord Hope
Born alive laws in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Live birth
Justice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Civil law
Superconductivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cooling

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi FT2,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on Jensen (1969)[edit]

Hi. I am the user who created How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. I saw your comments on the Keep decision in the recent AFD. My question: Do I need to worry about this article being deleted soon? My plan was to wait for the AFD to finish and then, assuming it was a Keep, to add more material. (I agree that the article lacks context and needs to be expanded. In fact, I like to think that aprock will like my additions.) But I hesitated to do that before because a) I wasn't sure if making lots of changes was appropriate behavior during an AFD and b) I did not want to devote a lot of time if the article was going to be deleted anyway. Would adding more material now be considered rude since aprock (and maybe others?) seem so unhappy with the AFD result? Yfever (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. In simple terms, an article can be improved during AFD and this is encouraged, especially if the problem that brought it to AFD is one that could be fixed.
(For example if it's awfully written and can be cleaned up, or lacks evidence of notability or sources and those can be added, or if it's not clear that it is significant in its own right independent of other pages and this can be shown from sources.)
There's no obligation to do so, and your reasons for not doing so seem pretty sensible. I would say the opposite of what you suggest is more likely. Right now some users consider it doesn't merit its own article, there isn't much to say about it independently, or it would only lead to POV and biased writing if someone did add material. Adding material to a high standard is likely to reassure and help, not upset and definitely not be seen as "rude". Worth checking, the courtesy is good.
Also if an article decision were referred to deletion review then it will be considered whether the close was appropriate. If so, it's best not to make huge changes at that point (although no need to undo any or stop completely) - let people consider it in a relatively stable state.
You do need to be careful to avoid POV here, which may mean doing quite a bit of research in Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc (or any resources you have). Think what you'd expect to find on an article on a paper, or look at other articles on papers. For example, what was its background context, how did it come about, what (if any) its publication history if unusual, what responses (immediate or longer term), and do we have sources that sum up its legacy in a balanced manner. Remember this article is to educate on the papers, not really the external dispute. So it can mention other things, have sections on them, link to them, note them, but primarily its focus should be "tell me about the papers and their context and consequences".
I'd suggest go step at a time, and be willing to wait for reactions. If you judge it poorly, you'll get them, that's not necessarily a problem but this topic may need extra care in writing and research to ensure it isn't just seen as "I told you so" and "just POV on the Race and IQ dispute".
I'm sure a good article exists - good luck in creating it! If you want an eye on potential material, I know nothing about it but you can always ask. Another suggestion might be the NPOV noticeboard - post briefly saying you're hoping to expand this article, it's a paper with some contentious history, and would appreciate users uninvolved in the "race and IQ" area willing to keep an eye on it and help ensure it keeps to a high standard.
Finally, when you've done what you feel right and believe it's well written and stable, and any disputes are resolved (it's a paper so hopefully that's easier to achieve), consider seeking Good Article standing for it, which is a nice standard to go for if you haven't tried to get an article through GA before. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I will give it a shot, mostly using material from other parts of Wikipedia. Yfever (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If you use material that others have written, be careful to attribute it to them. Plagiarism (using others work as if your own without attribution) is taken seriously. The key guideline here is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. A "good enough" way is to put a note in the edit summary referencing the original page, to be absolutely clear you are not trying to take credit for others' work. Directing others to that article or its history at minimum will show good faith and you should be fine. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA initiative[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Blackout screen designs#Oppose 2's talk page.

On a second point, the first debate shouldn't be attributed to prototype 1. That's not a good way to hold a run-off vote, since the original question was black v. white and a third prototype wasn't an option until afterward. It pollutes the data and makes consensus much more difficult to evaluate for a myriad of statistical reasons.   — C M B J   06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll make a mock-up of it for you that reduces the amount of supplemental text by 20% or so.   — C M B J   06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Blackout screen designs#Oppose 2's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Proposed Messages#Arbitrary break 1's talk page.

RevDel RfC? (follow up)[edit]

With the holidays behind us, I think now would be a good time to hold the RfC on changing the revision deletion policy, about which I dropped you a message approximately a month ago. I reviewed the proposed language we were discussing last spring, and it strikes me as just fine. The only thing I would question is the part which suggests possible replacements for RD5. First of all, I think we can/should consider RD7 (banned users' edits) a dead proposal, based on the RfC on that matter, which was actually completed. Second, while the proposed replacements which would parallel CSD#U3 and CSD#G9 could both potentially be incorporated into the RevDel criteria, perhaps they shouldn't be proposed in this RfC. Including those proposals in this RfC might be a bid to do two too many things at once. Just look at WT:REVDEL#Proposed changes and how muddled it got, and that was because only two distinct proposals were being put forth! Your thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Best wait till after January 18-19, SOPA's taking my attention and will take others' too. Maybe both look at it in about a week? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly. I'll ping you then. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the RfC on the talk page here. I reviewed everything carefully and tweaked Rd232's proposal a bit, and I think that the current text of the proposal is in line with the ideas we agreed upon in May. If there are any changes you would like to make, I welcome you to do so. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Legal aspects of file sharing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Justice
Megaupload (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Justice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles[edit]

Hi , did you know we don't quote article titles, they are the titillation, the eye catcher and that writers are generally allowed a degree of license with titles? Your addition that , ...was described as "hypocritical" by Forbes,(why did you add the quotation marks?) using this article to support it was imo not very correct at all - the word hypocrisy was not in the article at all and it was not that anyone was being described by Forbes as anything at all. Even if the title of the article was actually worthy of reporting (which it isn't - ever) you would rather need to attribute it to the writer not the publication. Youreallycan 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Titles are generally designed for titillation. However this one specifically stated that Forbes identified the person as a hypocrite; it's no less quotable as something Forbes said than when the Daily Mail declared Norris and Dobson to be "murderers" (1997) in the murder of Stephen Lawrence case. (The case itself was reopened 10 years later and came to trial recently, the two were found guilty). A headline is a reliable source for a plain statement that X said Y. In this case it's a reliable high-quality source that Forbes called the person a "hypocrite". FT2 (Talk | email) 22:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Forbes also is not in the article. I will leave it with you - I will ask at the noticeboard. Youreallycan 22:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
(Quotation marks are for the usual reason, because it's an actual quote, that's the specific term used. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

This is the title - PIPA Weakens as SOPA Gets Hypocritical - the only mention of the word hypocritical - the article was not written by Forbes and Smith is not named in the title. I am of the position that your addition (since removed) was basically your editorial license on top of the original editorial license which created a completely undue and basically, false statement. Youreallycan 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's solve that then, I think the same issue's been mentioned and handled with a different approach to wording elsewhere that might work. For BLP's extra caution is sensible - especially for negative matters. Will have a go at it shortly. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No - its not going back into the BLP in any form - Your campaign employs someone to create a campaign website and that is that, the subject has no personal involvement or personal responsibility in what pictures are uploaded to it. The website was only tangentially connected to him, was run by a company and content about the website and any minor claims to a picture not correctly attributed there does not belong at all in his BLP. - Youreallycan 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, sorry. This wasn't some random matter. It was discussed on at least 3 major, reputable news media - Time, Atlantic Wire, and Forbes - and a number of other reliable sources. In each case, it was directly commented on and considered as a reflection on or negative point to the man, not some unknown subordinates. It gained significant attention in that whole editorials focused on this one issue (ie not merely "in passing"). It was raised as a discussion point for, and in the context of, his sponsorship of PIPA, that his own office had used infringing material on his own website. Had it been deemed "minor" by the mainstream, sites like these would not have published whole articles on it using terms like "hypocritical" and in one case "stealing". I chose the milder of the two. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
(As an aside, other coverage - reliable sources but I think less authoritative or less high quality for a negative matter - describe him as "a copyright violator", "caught red-handed", or "involved in copyright infringement") FT2 (Talk | email) 23:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I strongly disagree with your position - but as you are insistent, I await your desired addition presented for discussion at the BLP thread. Youreallycan 00:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload[edit]

Responded to you on the Megaupload talk page. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SOPA tweets 23.00 UTC 18 January 2012.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SOPA tweets 23.00 UTC 18 January 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours[edit]

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear FT2,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FT2 HD possibility[edit]

Hi FT2, is there any private messageing that I can contact you on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemesis (talkcontribs) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Article Feedback Tool newsletter[edit]

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:NativeDeerPlate.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NativeDeerPlate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool updates[edit]

Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyes@wikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello FT2. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready![edit]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project[edit]

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like to talk with you about your work on the Deepwater Horizon Article

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Life's been insanely busy here (and will be a bit longer) and I've been travelling, but it can be fitted in. Let me know how you prefer to do it? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool office hours[edit]

Hey FT2; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Summary flag[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Summary flag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Summary top[edit]

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Summary row[edit]

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Summary bottom[edit]

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Summary flag[edit]

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, FT2. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Article Feedback Tool, Version 5[edit]

Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:

  • The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
  • On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
  • Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).


Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

I've been informed that you might be helpful at an SPI regarding Poetlister, by someone who is no longer a part of the community. [15] Dennis Brown - © 22:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

AWOL[edit]

WP:MAN[edit]

If you get time, please see WP:VPP#The newcomers manual. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner![edit]

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson[edit]

Please take help from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265088/Higgs-particle Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter[edit]

Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the #wikimedia-office connect channel, and another at 01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter[edit]

Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Peter Damian at AN[edit]

I think I recall that Peter Damian was involved with you before he was community banned. FYI there is a community unban discussion on WP:AN right now. You may want to comment there... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on this individual. There's a risk of people polarizing around personalities, rather than the issue actually raised, if I did. I have avoided interaction with this individual and commenting on him for a long time and continue to avoid these now. Ultimately a user's actions and history, and community consensus, will determine the request's outcome.
My only involvement was uncomfortable and unpleasant, but that was long, long, ago. If the community believes that the individual is capable of rejoining and respecting norms, and would not take this as vindication of past conduct or opportunity to act up again, then that's fine, if the community feels that a chance should not be given that's fine too. It's the community's choice not mine at this point; I haven't had any involvement in his history for years and am the wrong person to ask for a view on his current standing.
Without commenting on the individual or his case, it is easier to comment on the general situation of banned users. As a community we try to allow good edits if it's likely to be without "more trouble than it's worth" and harm to the community and project. Sometimes it's not possible; other times people change. If the community feels we can reasonably unban some user who is capable of good content, while ring-fencing them with strong conditions on permitted pages or activities to prevent any return to abuse (along with anti-gaming provisions, using wording like "appears to be" or "involvement of any kind in any issue relating to") it's always worth considering the option. That applies to many people, it's common sense. The crucial thing is drafting robust and hard-to-game conditions that even if pushed won't leave openings for a return of any old behaviors or foreseeable similar tactics. The risk is that such users play a "long game" and over time seek relaxed sanctions while pushing the envelope. Paradoxically, well known or repeat-ban ex-users are easier to try this approach, since attempts to act up would probably not divide the community and their bans are easily re-imposed if the experiment fails. On the other hand the community's patience can wear out too, or a user banned for poor conduct simply shows themselves incapable of reasonable long-term compliance. It depends.
I hope these thoughts are useful in general for unban discussions, but when it comes to this individual and his own case, I currently have no public opinion and would rather leave it to the community. Others know him far better than I do. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That all makes sense. I agree with you in general. Taking the high road and leaving it to the community is a good step on your part.
Hope you have a good day.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Todd Akin[edit]

Would you please not add contentious material to a protected page without consensus? This edit is highly inflammatory for a BLP, especially the claim of "Akin's scientific ignorance", the edit about "distrust of rape reports" is similarly inflammatory, and this edit is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Per WP:PROTECT you should only be making changes to a protected article if they are uncontroversial or have consensus on the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, you're absolutely right, it was protected and I hadn't noticed.
However in BLP terms I would say I don't think these are synthesis or diverging from sources, though I'm open to disagreement. They aim to accurately and validly characterize exactly what sources state. I gave 3 sources. There were numerous others. I've moved this to the article talk page for more eyeballs, and thanks for pointing it out. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)[edit]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfication of Timeline of the Enron scandal[edit]

Hi FT2, would you be willing to userfy (or at the very least email) the content of Timeline of the Enron scandal, so I can clean it up and restore the article? I believe that is a valuable article for Wikipedia to have, and am willing to spend some time cleaning it up to make sure it satisfies BLP policies. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 01:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For sure! 1/ Do you want the entire page and all history, or just the content of the latest revision? 2/ Would User:Legoktm/Timeline of the Enron scandal be best or do you want it at some other location? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
1. I'm guessing the full page history would be valuable to have since it would make a move back to the main space easier. 2. That would be fine, thank you! LegoKontribsTalkM 01:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
My bad. See WP:USERFY#NO item 7 ("just an essay" but has good acceptance and is broadly good guidance). I emailed the August 17 2012 01:47 version (latest, unedited) instead. If you want to edit on-wiki I suppose it could be just about okay in a collapse box or commented out, in user space, as it wont be linked internally or indexed externally, or visible on a plain load of the page. If you want to do that, best quickly check with another admin first (one difficult decision in a matter is enough for me!!).
Deleted revision link 2012-08-17 01:47 for admin convenience. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I got your email. For now I'll keep it off wiki until I feel satisfied with the content of the article (and I'll probably ask you to look at it again before publishing on-wiki again). LegoKontribsTalkM 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile[edit]

The question of balance in the introduction has been much discussed on the talk page, and I suggest you raise your concerns there. This site is certainly not a BBC site, and I doubt its reliability on a topic like this. I'm out for the next few hours, but hope to return to the discussion later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Raised there, and hopefully enough cites to reassure you now. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I just made a minor edit, then noticed the problem in the lead, so reverted it. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uninvolved[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Uninvolved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility questions[edit]

Hi. I've reverted your edits to the questionaire page. The way it is supposed to work is that you cretae your own subpage for answering the questions, with the page you were editing substituted onto it. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire. Of course your previous answers can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter[edit]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape and enforced pregnancy in conflict[edit]

A copy editor is working on the article Pregnancy from rape. He had some questions on the section on Rape and enforced pregnancy in conflict. Since you are the editor that worked on that section the most, could you answer them, here.Casprings (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, FT2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Squatting in England and Wales. Thank you. -- KC9TV 11:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter[edit]

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion/removal of public view-Rider University revision[edit]

I'm asking if this revision of Rider University (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rider_University&oldid=515565523) on 2:56, October 2, 2012 to be removed from public view/deleted from history. It seems to be pointless vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.140.149 (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, but I wouldn't. RevDelete exists more to remove stuff that would actually tend to do harm or disrupt Wikipedia or its editing - perhaps by being grossly offensive, deeply hurtful, copyvio or privacy breaching, or the like. This is ordinary unremarkable vandalism. Revert (as happened) and carry on with content writing. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

If you are an administrator, you are automatically approved. There is no need to add yourself to the user list. However, don't forget AWB Rule 2 (Consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.")." from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I noted this on the page for others' clarity. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Higgs talk page[edit]

Hi FT2, could you please have a look at the discussion in the talk page of the Higgs boson article?. Thanks, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA clerks[edit]

The possibility of RfA clerking was discussed in depth last year. The discussion is being revisited with new suggestions. If the proposal is to be developed the question of appointing clerks would need to be examined. This could be an informal process modeled on the appointment of SPI clerks. Your input at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued)/Clerks would be most appreciated. Many thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter[edit]

Hey all; another newsletter.

  • If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
  • Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
  • We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
  • Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AutoPatcher[edit]

When I saw your recent edits to this article, I thought to myself "those are good edits". Then I realized that kind of thought should not be kept to myself. So ... thanks!

Cheers, CWC 01:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC) an AutoPatcher user

Thank you! You're welcome, too! FT2 (Talk | email) 12:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing[edit]

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your RevDelete screenshot[edit]

I thought File:RevDelete isn't subtle (2).png was looking a bit out of date, so, voilà: File:RevDelete still isn't subtle.png. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That still wasn't subtle. Oh wait a moment, yes it was - it's a font change! Heh! FT2 (Talk | email) 11:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Safety of the LHC[edit]

I wish you had floated such a radical plan on the talk page before implementing it. It took some effort (by several other editors, my part in it was small) to bring the article to GA status, now I believe that the status should be reassessed. There is repetition between the newly-added RHIC part and the pre-existing LHC part, and your new organization of the paragraphs seems odd. E.g., in the previous version the section "Safety Arguments" summarized the physics of the various safety concerns, while the section "specific concerns and responses" (specific being the operative word) explained who said what and how it was rebutted (I agree that the titles could have been better). However, now you treat MBH, strangelets and "concerns not meeting peer review" as three subsections of the same "specific concerns" section. But in fact the "concerns not meeting peer review" (formerly "specific concerns and responses") concern indeed catastrophic MBH production! Also, the title "examples of colliders" sounds quite silly and does not fit very well the content of the paragraph. Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. pay attention to the Higgs boson article, an anonymous editor has been adding doomsday rants on the vacuum instability issue to the lead. Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall you're right on all the points you say. As justification, I hope the rationale makes good sense in the end, and that after it's cleaned out for any issues, it'll be agreed it's better long-term for it. It felt that we had a very off-target or not-best-targeted article, and as NPOV issues catch my eye it also felt (to me, and I don't say everyone will perceive it that way) like a very subtle NPOV issue. While the LHC focus was balanced, the article was also used for all other topics touching on collision safety, and the topic it presented overall was not just the LHC and was not given really rounded treatment, because it was constrained by its title to one specific application or one particular time it had come up, then tried to piggyback the rest onto it as background only, which didn't really read very well. It was quite "this side and that side" which is often a sign an article needs to stand back and refocus slightly. I do agree the article could now be cleaned up on all the areas you point out; I did the minimum to focus it on the topic of collision safety (generally) and to figure out a provisional structure without editing the section contents more than I had to, so it could definitely do with re-polishing.
The issue of high energy collisions safety (as the article says) came up before LHC, in almost identical form, at RHIC, and comes up (and surely will come up) again for super-LHC or other planned future colliders, or as a topic or concern in its own right separate from LHC. So targeting "safety of high energy particle colliders" as the central topic is a very natural umbrella. It covers all safety aspects at all high energy colliders, in a unified flow, as well as any other scenarios where high energy particle collisions' safety may be of concern. By abstracting it from the situation it most recently arose, it also allows some "standing back" and perspective" over history and time, which is harder if LHC is the focus. (For example, surely there were loud concerns over safety when we hit 100 GeV colliders too, "back in the day".) So there's a long historical context, but focusing on one specific collider in the title tends to miss it out, marginalize it, or suggest other events or history is only important as background to this collider.
Anyhow, I am sorry if you felt more consultation was needed. Perhaps it was a bit abrupt, especially for a GA. I'll keep an eye on the HB article too, and sure you will also. Best, and thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following you: what was the NPOV issue?
Moreover, I don't see the fact that the article was about the LHC as a problem. Indeed, both strangelets and MBH scenarios were raised for the LHC, I don't understand what you mean by "the article was also used for all other topics". The RHIC story was mentioned in the article because it was part of the background (and because some of the actors, e.g. Walter "50%-50%" Wagner, were the same). Now, the article is supposed to refer to all particle-physics experiments (BTW, where's the Tevatron?), but it still contains only a very detailed account of the LHC story preceded by a much rougher sketch of the RHIC. Just look at your "examples" (argh!) section, and compare the descriptions of the two colliders... Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey FT2; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Check again that talk page, there is a case for an immediate block. Ptrslv72 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

He is an arbitor and as such his information and identity are already public. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Now this IP editor is harassing me with an utterly frivolous sockpuppet tag. This requires an urgent explanation. Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>68.69.166.126 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And that was before I saw this and this... Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Plagurisim[edit]

My textbooks have apparently been plagerized. Mr. Brandt distributes a free tool and I just ran it and I found dozens of articles which plagurized my research papers on arxiv and several textbooks. Who do I report this to? 68.69.166.126 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that people often contact info-en-c@wikimedia.org, giving an exact page or link to the exact text they believe they own the copyright to, and evidence substantiating or proving that they are the owner of the copyright in the text. Be aware that the law allows a certain degree of use. If you want to complain more formally, there is something called an OCILLA request, and I believe one sends it to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, but it's best to ask them if unsure. If you want to check, either of those will be able to help. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I permitted to simply remove the materials in question and post the relevant links to the talk page? 68.69.166.126 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in sending OCILLA or any other nonsense legalese documents to anyone. For one it's a waste of everyone's time. For another, it's simply not my style. When people have to resort to such things, the relationship of mutuality is simply over. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. Mutuality is also over when you threaten someone online. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll just simply post the materials to Mr. Brandt's website. They seem to get taken down then. I have dozens of papers on arxiv and they are not free use copyright since they were published by an acedemic organization and not posted wikipedia style there. At any rate, I'll send them to him to post. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are going to crap your drawers when you find out who I am in the physics community. I am blacklisting this website in our organization. Jus! 68.69.166.126 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you would provide links to the pages that infringe your work, and then links to your work itself, we can look into it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
OMG what on earth is a "neo roman asshole"? on your talkpage. I am rolling out of my chair laughing.  ???? 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you are trying to get a PhD in biology, here is a project for you. Four subunits beneath the IGP singaling pathway, swap the adenine and tyrosine pair in a mouse, and you will discover you have halted aging. It's caused by NF Kappa B production (mild inflamatory response) as the result of a transcription error in FOX 2-5 -- they add a broken acetyl group to these transciption factors which appear to be the cause of aging in mammals. Would make a good thesis and you will discover it cures aging. Also, Chocolate is the cause of cancer in humans -- it supresses the p53 tumor suppresor gene. No kidding, chocolate is the cause of cancer in humanity. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother. I don't want to waste any more time. Anything and everything except simply apologize for your conduct. i.e. Dear Sir, we noticed you yourself removed the edit in question before we threatened you. We apologize for doing so, please consider helping us, since we clearly need it. Try that instead. 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is a talk page for then? I was attempting to discuss it with someone and we had concensus, what right do you have to threaten us after we ourselves handled it without you? 68.69.166.126 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

Blocking 68.69.166.126 (talk · contribs) became unavoidable. See his latest oversighted contribs to see why. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Just wanted to thank you for working on Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant. Amazing article - one of the things that makes the internet not suck. Thanks again. U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For excellent work on Kermit Gosnell Transcendence (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Notifications[edit]

Hey FT2 :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your 05:29, 20 August 2010 edit to WP:UP[edit]

Hi FT2,

In 2010 you made a major rewrite of Wikipedia talk:User pages. Overall it was very good, though a bit shocking to slow people like myself. Today I decided that I don't support the usefulness of one particular edit: [[16]]. I have raised the matter here: Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Cutting_some_unnecessary_text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Commented there - thanks, a good catch! Note that the paragraph was over 3 years older and added in 2007, by User:Dragons flight, who should be notified. And whose username needs an apostrophe ;-) FT2 (Talk | email) 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released[edit]

Hey FT2; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Me and. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Tom Lehrer, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. —me_and 10:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Higgs article[edit]

Hi FT2, have a look here. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I am wondering if we should keep citing this blog post in the section on Current Status. The post propagates claims of another blog post that, as you can see in the latter's comments section, have been debunked by no less than your new hero Frank Close... ;-) Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

[amused:] My new hero? I'm asked to provide/recheck old cites because of real-world attention and (as often happens) the cites when checked provide an extra nugget that seems to be sane, salient, and match the facts stated elsewhere. So its added. Can Frank Close - and anyone else in a citation - not be my "new hero" today? Kthx!
Anyhow, my first thought is - the author's (apparently, and nobody's saying otherwise) a post doctorate at CERN on ATLAS, so presumably knows what they are talking about. But comments from Frank CLose (or so it seems and again no-one's saying otherwise) disagree with the post. My technical knowledg is way too low for this. Can you figure out what point it's supporting in the article 1/ if that point is invalid, valid but supported by a poor/dubious cite, or has multiple significant viewpoints that need mention, and 2/ is there stuff we say (or should say) in the article body which you think we should fix, remove, or get a better cite for? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Aidan Randle-Conde (ARC) - the author of this blog post - claims that the decay of a spin-2 particle into two spin-1/2 particles is forbidden, because you cannot add up two spin-1/2 states to make a spin-2 state. Frank Close (FC) points out the rather trivial fact that ARC's reasoning neglects orbital angular momentum. A spin-2 particle can decay to two spin-1/2 particles in a state with orbital angular momentum L=1 (i.e., what is called a P wave). FC also stresses that the decay of a scalar (such as the SM Higgs) to two spin-1/2 particles also occurs in a L=1 state (because of parity conservation), thus it is neither suppressed nor enhanced w.r.t. the corresponding decay of a spin-2 particle. Finally, FC points out that ARC's explanation for why a spin-1 particle cannot decay to two photons is also incorrect (the correct explanation is subtler, and it's given e.g. on page 359 of Close's own textbook). Even after FC's rebuttal (with real-life examples) to ARC's confused reply (see here), ARC refuses to amend his post.
I can't see any flaw in FC's arguments, and I think that we are doing a disservice to the readers by directing them to a blog post (a questionable kind of source to start with) that propagates incorrect information. I would simply remove the reference, after all it's not the only one we are providing. As to the fact that "a CERN postdoc presumably knows what they are talking about", the sad truth is that 1) experimentalists cannot always be trusted to understand theoretical subtleties, as you can judge by ARC's handwaving reply linked above, and 2) some people would not admit being wrong even under torture. If you (FT2) don't trust your own knowledge and want to go for authority, consider that an Oxford professor of theoretical particle physics, author of various textbooks on the topic, "presumably knows what he's talking about" better than some postdoc experimentalist. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
As to why we were citing the blog post in the first place, if I remember correctly an earlier version of the section contained the erroneous claim that a spin-2 particle cannot decay to two taus. It might be that we removed the claim but not the reference. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds sensible - can you fix it? I think my technical knowledge might mean I'd under- or over-correct it if I tried. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karrimor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • as the Union Jack"] - Carradice saddlebags history, classiclightweights.co.uk, by Steve Griffith]: ''Carradice had a number of rivals in the cycle bag market. These included ... Dunlop ... and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karrimor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • as the Union Jack"] - Carradice saddlebags history, classiclightweights.co.uk, by Steve Griffith]: ''Carradice had a number of rivals in the cycle bag market. These included ... Dunlop ... and
  • of Knowledge: Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Networks in the British Outdoor Trade 1960-1990]'' (2003).</ref> initially driven by the [[1953 British Mount Everest expedition|1953 climbing of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karrimor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Karrimor[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: DYK edit[edit]

Thank you for the message. I apologise for the lack of communication on my part. The change appeared to be trivial at the initial glance.

Upon checking the citations and the detailed explanations you have provided, I have re-inserted both of the descriptive terms and indicted the change in DYK talk page. Cheers. Alex ShihTalk 07:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Award[edit]

Megaupload Is/Was[edit]

Simple heads-up about this edit, given your comment and edit in January 2012. (My comment here is no judgment of that recent edit; just letting you know about it.) --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for RevisionDelete[edit]

Hi, FT2. There appears to be a fairly new user (new to English Wikipedia, at least) who has been blanking, overwriting and importing highly biased tracts from RU wikipedia into controversial EN wikipedia pages. As he/she has done this over several edits, I am unable to simply 'undo' the edits and would prefer that a record of the activity remain. This has taken place on the Name of Ukraine article and I'd like it reverted to the this version. I'd be very grateful if you could assist me on this matter. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unless I'm really misunderstanding what you're asking for, that's not what RevisionDelete does. It won't leave a record the way you want. What you want can be done without revision delete (and without being an admin), by clicking Edit then Save page, on the link that you posted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank heaven for little trolls! I'll try it out. If I'm too dumb to work it out I may have to stalk you for a blow by blow walkthrough. Your assistance has been invaluable! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! That was precisely what I wanted to achieve, Jackmcbarn. The RevisionDelete info left me a perplexed as it implied that it was considered preferred and best practice for retaining subsequent edits. I can see, now, that, should there be anything of merit in the edits made by Shervinsky, I've retained all of the information for myself and the many, many 'interested' parties contributing to pick through at and squabble over at leisure on the article's talk page until a consensus on lack of consensus is reached. Can I assume that RevisionDelete is really simply the easiest method for retrieving far older versions of an entry that has been redacted, blanked & tampered with so many times over a prolonged period of time that it isn't possible to salvage it from the method you suggested? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)No. Revision deletion hides deleted edits so that they can't be publicly seen. It is used for getting rid of content which is so unacceptable that it cannot be allowed to remain even in the page history, such as serious libel. Usually, when an edit has been revision-deleted, you can see in the edit history that some edit took place, but you can't see what the edit was. (I say "usually", because occasionally it is only the edit summary which is hidden from view, if an editor makes an edit which is OK, but uses an edit summary to post unacceptable content.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, I've got it. Of course, that is logical = revision is, to all intents and purposes, deleted. It seems obvious now but, still being on a learning curve and having been confronted with heavily biased content which had basically usurped the article, I flew into a bit of panic over the 'right' and 'wrong' way to do it.
While I'm here, I'm hoping to pick your brain over the issue at hand. Shervinsky has reinstated all of the reverted edits in the Name of Ukraine article. A section on the talk page was introduced by him after the fact of having reinstated them when I'd asked that the matter be discussed with other editors and myself first.
Yes, it's one of 'those' Slavic edit warring articles. While Shervinsky's edits may appear constructive on face value, it's basically a direct translation of the Russian Wikipedia article and I've now been 'challenged' further by his/her enlisting the support of someone I've been assisting in cleaning up Russian articles being pulled into English Wikipedia as new entries. While I have no qualms about new articles being sourced from another Wikipedia in the initial instance, the article in question has been carefully redacted & disputed for a number of years in order to avoid the blatant biases of the Russian entry. As Shervinsky is using VE, he/she can't even see the number of hidden comments I've made regarding citations & questionable content but haven't removed as I'm allowing some time for other contributors to address them.
The last thing I want to do is start an edit war but Shervinsky has made it abundantly clear that he/she has an agenda and does not intend to let up. The disruptive behaviour is escalating and this new user was busy tidying their new & improved version literally while I was sleeping. I'm not about to enter into a dialogue on the talk page as it lends a legitimacy to a challenge which simply shouldn't exist (plus I'm feeling somewhat antagonised and not in the right frame of mind to enter into a strategic nightmare).
Other than telling me to go away because you have a headache, could you offer me some sort of constructive advise on how to approach the matter? Thank you (in advance). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Current Events[edit]

Hi, I sent you an email. Do you have time to talk before Sunday when I talk about Wikipedia on CNN? Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, you are invited[edit]

Hello FT2, thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I am contacting you because you are an active editor who is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality. It is my hypothesis that a re-branded "WikiProject" that is more "edgy" and decentralized could prove to be more successful than a structured WikiProject when tackling issues related to this core concept. So I have started something I named Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal. I've already gotten a real-life friend to sign up, and you might know how hard that is to get people to participate on this medium. I invite you to sign up/participate so that we can hopefully collaborate, build camaraderie, and improve the encyclopedia. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Higgs mass metastability.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Higgs mass metastability.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fusion power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • thumb|Mockup of a gold-plated hohlraum designed for use in the [[National Ignition Facility]]]]
  • [[Laser inertial confinement]], sometimes known as 'indirect drive', involves [[[[Implosion (mechanical process)|imploding]] a microcapsule fuel pellet (known as a '[[hohlraum]]')

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem[edit]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference huff lords & nyt lords but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [17] --Frze > talk 17:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Death and funeral of Nelson Mandela[edit]

I reverted your recent move of the page because you'd only moved the talk page rather than the whole article, but I thought it might be worth opening a discussion on the matter. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post on the talk page. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion now open here. Feel free to add your thoughts. Cheers again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC sockpuppeting[edit]

Hi FT2, could you comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Achidiac? Gm545 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to encourage me, it means a lot. Baalmaloche (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prenda Law may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • copyright-trolls Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature: Prenda Law, the Porn Copyright Trolls], 2013-05-30]: ''"When the judge asked Steele to identify himself, he said, “I no longer actively practice law.”

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wright[edit]

Hiya. In regard to this content of yours, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otis_D._Wright_II&diff=602584617&oldid=601239270 is it alright here to quote so much in copyright standards and the legal externals https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1093640/031118524877.pdf can they be used, and is the detail you wrote about this single case not excessive on his life story page ? Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Attributed copying from public-domain sources such as works of the US government is fine. However, plagiarizing material under copyright, which is what you have done, is not. Though all text on Wikipedia is published under a free content licence, that licence requires that the authorship attribution be preserved. In the future, when copying text from one page to another please remember to indicate the source in your edit summary or on the target article's talk page. Thanks! —Psychonaut (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Attributed copying from public-domain sources such as works of the US government is fine. - what is that about - ? - I was asking abnout excessive guoting of copyrighted content and using primary legaL DOCS to quote and post content - done your request - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S.A._v._Hudson,_Whitfield_%26_Dunlap - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The URL you gave points to a work of the US government (specifically, a court order from a United States District Court) which, as such, is in the public domain. You can therefore quote as much as you want without running afoul of copyright law. (Though of course, for our purposes, the amount quoted should be in line with what's necessary to give an encyclopedic overview of the topic.) If there were additional non-free sources quoted, then of course these excerpts need to comply with WP:NFCC. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As Psychonaut said, the quotations are 1/ public domain (Federal Govt original authorship), and 2/ overall small and key snippets from a large document (it's a large-ish quote for Wikipedia norms but small for the source document). So it's valid, neither copyright issue nor plagiarism. But it was an excessive quote and not ideal for our standards. The original issue was that the article on the judge asserted that "Hudson" was one of his "notable" cases but did not said anything about the case, nor why it was notable, nor any third parties who highlighted it that way, to support Wikipedia's article's position. It simply stated that he called some (undescribed) government action "outrageous" - but no information what action it was, nor why, nor in what way. I've been moving round this week, so didn't have time for the research but could add enough to allude to why it might be seen that way, from a quick skim of his ruling. Enough to at least help a reader. But not ideal even so.
I see it's been moved to its own article, and that's probably ideal, though it still needs proper third party material to replace the over reliance on quotes and to show how it was seen by independent sources and writers. Thanks for the fix and move, whoever did it, it's cleaner now than it was. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Mant thanks for your comments, interpretion of wiki guides. Mosfetfaser (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Article now moved to better spot, and a little updated, may help it take shape better. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic improvement, well done Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesper Olsen (runner) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, FT2. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ebola virus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ([[Kilobase#Length measurements|kb]]). It encodes seven structural [[protein]]s: [nucleoprotein]] (NP), [[polymerase cofactor]] (VP35), (VP40), GP, [[transcription activator]] (VP30), VP24, and [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus[edit]

On your edit here, fyi, the convention is that it's an outbreak of a virus that causes the disease. It's not an outbreak of disease, per se. People get the virus first, which causes the disease, which is why I changed it to clarify. Would you reconsider your edit, then? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat conflicted, because on one hand I wouldn't wish to breach a well established convention. On the other hand we don't notice or record as the primary focus, an outbreak of virus, we notice and record an outbreak of a disease, then identify the pathogen responsible. It also makes sense, because we care about the outbreak of a disease, and unless it has a disease implication, we don't seem to care much or care aout the outbreak of a virus in the absence of human impact. Ebola may have outbroken (sp?) long before March 2014 but we only called it an outbreak when the outbreak is observed to be of disease. Even if we did not know the etiology or responsible pathogen - if any - we would still describe the situation as an "outbreak" of a disease. Epidemologically it's important to be clear the pathogen, so in that niche one would discuss an outbreak of a birus, but beyond that niche, the vastly more common description would be an outbreak of the disease - media would not describe it as an outbreak of "Cote d'Ivoire Ebola virus" but an outbreak of "Ebola" [the disease].
Backing this up, I just did a google search for pages referencing "outbreak of flu" but NOT "outbreak of flu virus" (4400 hits) but the other way around has 30 hits. A second disease in the same verbal style as Ebola might be smallpox (smallpox outbreak vs smallpox virus outbreak), and again, "outbreak of smallpox" without "outbreak of smallpox virus" had 7580 hits compared to "outbreak of smallpox virus" with 5 hits. "Outbreak of meningitis" (again the disease not the pathogen) follows the same pattern.
In other epidemics, the disease was also the common name - there was an outbreak of "mad cow disease" or "Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease" in the UK, not an outbreak of malformed prions, and one reads about an outbreak of "Legionnaires' disease" far more that one ever sees mention of an outbreak of Legionella pneumophila.
Even when no pathogen is considered, we see widespread reference to describing the outbreak of the illness not the agent (rossref google: "outbreak of cancer", "outbreak of diabetes", "outbreak of blindness").
Not conclusive of course, but shows common usage beyond at most a narrow niche is universally to describe the outbreak as being one of the disease or condition, not of the virus. The virus absent any disease is unremarkable, the disease seems to be what is remarked upon in each case. What shall we do? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've just made an excellent description of the dilemma caused by the news media and Google results that lead to confusion. As a matter of fact, the naming convention for Ebola virus had to be reaffirmed by the ICTV because of the problem of the media using the term incorrectly, and even some later researchers. The correct name is Ebola virus, per the naming convention for viruses, and as the majority of the literature supports, so the name was reaffirmed. The epidemiology/virology literature supports the convention of describing a viral or bacterial outbreak as an 'outbreak of virus/bacteria.' And this being an encyclopedia, the policies I've read seem to suggest we ought to go by that convention. As for what to do in this moment, I'd like to see it put back. But this time I'd add a talk page note and add 'see talk page' in the edit summary. That might help. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Viruses not virii[edit]

Dear FT2, I noticed that you introduced the spelling virii on Ebola virus. In classical Latin virus is a singulare tantum. If one would create a possible plural, vira would be a probable candidate (also used in Stearn's Botanical latin). However, using the English plural 'viruses' would be considered as the best option in this case. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I gracefully concede that in this case, the experts probably have a better chance of being correct. Still feels wrong though ;-) You might want to correct English plural which doesn't agree with the other articles? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear FT2, thanks for the response. Did you had a specific source for virii? With knd regards, Wimpus (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it's just the term that, as a native English speaker, always "felt right", and "virus -> viruses" always felt wrong. But I can see from the articles you linked, that I might have picked up this usage from malware virus+plural. Hence why I could easily be wrong all this time :) Please do correct if experts and virology specialists would use "viruses" instead. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work[edit]

Hi,
Nice work on Argentine debt restructuring. Thanks! I think there may still be some duplication, but the article is looking much better. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi I would like to have my revision history deleted from my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praveen_Anidil due to privacy concerns. Hope you do the needful Thank you. Inferno0318 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Transmission line loudspeaker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Engineers, vol 19 issue 7 July 1931 (p.1111 - 1130), ISSN 0731-5996, DOI 10.1109/JRPROC.1931.222439]</ref> A patent was filed in 1934.<ref>[http://www.google.com/patents/US2031500?dq=carlson+

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Grooming[edit]

About eight years ago you created and redirected "Grooming". We're discussing Internet Grooming at WP:RFD. As the creator and modifier of this many years ago, you may have some views. Nobody is suggesting anyone here engages in that activity, but where best to retarget it. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I wasn't involved in that page at all (full page history). I did create a redirect in 2006, but it was for a completely different topic AFAIK: namely the general term "grooming", and redirected to social grooming (in the sense of attending to one's appearance: animals cleaning their feathers and fur, people being groomed for interview etc) which I'd been expanding (13 edits diff).
As part of editing an article, one looks at whether its title - and other titles people might search and expect to find it under - are appropriate. So I created a redirect for the article I had edited.
Given how widely it's used (bridegroom, social grooming, child/predator grooming, other uses?) I'm more inclined now to suggest the topics "groom" and "grooming" should end up together at a disambiguation page. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Refs for medical content[edit]

Please note that we do not typically use blogs or the popular press. We prefer sources per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That comes over as high handed and condescending, as the edit was not at all controversial, and was indeed cited to a medical paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23155478), and in addition to 'Virology' journal.
WP:MEDRS makes clear that "prefer" isn't exclusive. Not all content even in a medical article is medical. Medical journal sources are better for clinical scientific aspects of the content. Mass science media can crucially collate coverage of several aspects in one place, or collate different aspects, including non-clinical real-world coverage and information not part of a peer reviewed medical paper. They can also communicate some areas more helpfully for mass readership.
To the point: I think your trimming down of content was generally good - tighter wording is usually better. But EVD isn't just clinical. It covers all significant aspects of EVD - human, social, and other. In that context, a belief that reputable sober-minded media widely consider one of the more serious and "dangerous" areas of "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories", should be a little more prominently addressed.
For that reason I think you may have veered a bit too far on the side of trimming it down. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is specifically that we do not use the popular press for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to re-check WP:MEDRS for the part you missed out. I see that you didn't recheck when I suggested gently first time. Here's WP:MEDRS itself:
This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content.... Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline...
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles... (the rest of that paragraph discusses media coverage of medical information only, in terms of poor quality assessment of its exact significance, and does not touch on mass media coverage of non-medical information.)
Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense...
Putting this area of MEDRS into plain English:
  1. Medical content should be sourced from medical sources, as medical content in mass media is usually considered dubious and unreliable in terms of its analysis of the exact content of medical studies; however...
  2. All other (non-medical) content (including social analysis, current-affairs, and popular perceptions) that is covered in medical articles, is assessed according to the general WP:RS policy, not MEDRS.
  3. In addition, high quality mass media can sometimes explain the importance of a medical matter in plain, accessible, English. For such sources, commonsense (not medical paper) is the way to judge the matter.
An edit adding information about a medical point and citing the medical content to an NIH peer reviewed paper and Virology magazine, and using a highly reputable media source for social commentary and summary of current public perceptions and plain English meaning of the medical matter (which matches the medical sources and is hence commonsense), fits WP:MEDRS precisely. I hope we can now agree on this, and after reflection, let it go.
I shouldn't have had to point you to the policy wording after my first comment, which clearly showed the medical information to be medically sourced. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)