User talk:Fæ

Click to start a new talk topic

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fits a coordinated pattern I have seen of personal homophobic harassment directed against me over the last month on Twitter, Wikipedia Review, email, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. I would like those that keep an eye on my user page to take note and reflect on whether the harassment policies we have for the Wikimedia projects are able to act effectively or efficiently when anonymous accounts, low contribution sock puppet accounts and manipulative traveling circuses are used to attack members of our community. Not all such attacks are as obvious as this one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents, I would have just WP:RBI and this thread wouldn't have existed to manifest that further. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many people would not believe that this kind of talk exists if they did not see it. People who are not LGBT supporters do not have this happen to them. This has happened to me also on Wikipedia and it is scary that people would use their short time on this earth to harass other people. Hiding it in an attempt to keep it from manifesting further is what people have done for most of history, and that has proven to be an incomplete solution. I do not know what the whole solution is, but raising awareness of this reality is part of it. If it were an isolated random incident I would say to delete it, but it is not productive to ask the victims of a persistent, pervasive problem to do their best to prevent public disclosure of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• True, but not applying WP:DENY (part of WP:RBI) is just playing right into their hands, no? Moral of the story, why play the victim card? In the 1969 film "Battle of Britain", an irritated ACM Sir Hugh Dowding said: "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week!" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Where I live if anyone spoke those words publicly or graffiti'd them then then no one would say that Fæ was insulted or a victim of vandalism; they would say that he was threatened and the target of a hate crime. Of course things are different at the keyboard but this behavior is representative of deeper problems on Wikipedia and as Fæ says there ought to be conversation about other protections. A part of the LGBT rights movement as well as other rights movements for face, religion, and other traits facing discrimination dictates calling for wider recognition of the prejudice against people representing minorities. Fæ is not playing a victim card; he is acting in accord with the movement consensus that allies of minority groups should tell others details about targeted attacks so that more people can understand that this is not a problem that any attack recipient has, but rather a problem which the community has to address. If the community does not hear about it then there can be no community response.

The vandals which ought to be ignored are the ones who are likely to go away. Fæ's situation is extraordinary because among other things it includes attacks off Wikipedia. It may not be socially appropriate for him to say that for humility or for not wanting to disturb anyone with his problems, but I confirm that what he is experiencing is hostile for reasons unrelated to his Wikipedia behavior. Even if attacks cannot be stopped he should get community support beyond what Wikipedia policies say should be afforded to those visited by mere vandals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the edits on Computer Virus and Antivirus software

Thank you for your welcome message. I have been editing Wikipedia articles from a long time but I don't have a lot of experience. I have an account but I prefer not to sign in. I'm also not a native English speaker.

Please review the edits I've just made and help correct and adapt them for best fit (see the mistake I made and I cannot correct in the talk section of the Antivirus software article).

With respect, thank you! 79.119.11.171 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that info. It will help a lot. 79.119.11.171 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Omegle

Hi. I noticed this edit because it directly followed one of my own. Can you please explain how this [1] was vandalism? Uncited, sure, and maybe WP:UNDUE, even perhaps WP:NPOV issues - the phrasing is poor and "hyped", but surely not vandalism? I only point this out because of a recent RFA I was involved in which sadly failed due to the community's distaste at marking edits covered by WP:NOT VANDALISM as vandalism, and I thought you'd want to be aware under those circumstances. I hope you don't mind me doing that. Begoon ^talk 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Omegle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thanks for pointing it out. The second time around was not marked as vandalism and I gave a much better explanation in the edit comment. As you are tracking the history here, I'll leave it to you to follow up with Cooldog789 (talk · Special:Contributions/Cooldog789 · logs · block log) as to why their third time adding the same non-neutral and unsourced critical comments about "horrific nudity", in less than 3 hours, puts them in danger of being seen as blatantly edit-warring. Thanks for your help in supporting this new user, I'll take the article off my watch-list. --Fæ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Indeed, your second revert does explain better. Since the original edit directly followed one of my edits, I could hardly miss it, really. It's still on my watchlist, so I'll no doubt follow what happens, but I'm not an admin, so what I can do will be limited. I agree it's a nuisance when people try to repeatedly insert a strong POV, and it's often difficult to know what line to take. I'll certainly consider discussing it with them, or warning them, or anyone else, who edit wars there. The new user registered in 2010, but granted, there is such an editing gap, and so few edits overall, that you may as well consider them new. I'm not sure why you want to take Omegle off your watchlist now, it gets a lot of vandalism and every pair of eyes helps, but thanks for the quick response.Begoon ^talk 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Boys

All contestants on talent contests should not be on wiki. The Winner show itself and say the other finalist perhaps. Daniel Boys came 6th in Any Dream Will Do and he hasn't done anything noteworthy since. He is an understudy! Come on. How is he noteworthy? This is the problem with Wiki it has become bloated with useless information that serves no purpose. Just because someone has an Official Website does not make them a star. I have written 5 novels which have sold a total of 36,000 copies in the U.K. I'm not noteworthy either. Wiki is becoming a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.26.223 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Boys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As mentioned on your talk page, there is a sufficient rationale against WP:ENT to make a speedy on WP:CSD A7 grounds dubious. If you wish to have this article fully discussed against the notability criteria then please nominate the article per Articles for deletion. You may want to read Summary of benefits before doing so, though I suspect you may already be familiar with it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)