User talk:Feezo

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

Lutici/Pomerania-Medcom closure[edit]

Dear Feezo, I am pretty much at loss about what to do after your closure of the Lutici/Pomerania-Medcom. Per its own definition, Medcom is the final step in content dispute resolution, so there are no other steps in DR to pursue at this point. What I had preferred was the mediated RfC you suggested, what I am missing is a statement pointing out the course of action that needs to follow now. If the dispute can not be resolved even with a mediator, it is even more unlikely to be resolved without a mediator, and if the final stage of DR is aborted, it seems pointless to start the DR process anew. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Skäpperöd—this dispute is unusual in that up to this point it has been almost entirely between you and VM. Most cases that are accepted for mediation involve more than two editors. There is little that a mediator can do when one side is unwilling to participate. Per Medcom policy, mediation is a voluntary process.
There are still a number of avenues of dispute resolution open, with the best option being RfC. Unfortunately, I do not believe you will receive much cooperation from VM in running it. His proposed question "why hasn't Skapperod presented any sources but just keeps endlessly arguing in circles" indicates that either he is not taking the dispute resolution process seriously, or that he is treating this as a user conduct issue. In either case, mediation is no longer appropriate.
If you wish to proceed with an RfC, I will be happy to review your proposed wording—your outline is a good start. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I did/do take the process seriously and I rather think that the inability to provide sources (despite repeated requests) would be more indicative of "not taking the dispute resolution process seriously". And like I said at the page, if the central question is the reliability of Michalek as a source, then the natural thing to do would be to re-list it at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Feezo. I have copypasted the thoughts I presented on the Medcom page for an RfC draft [1] to a sandbox page - User:Skäpperöd/MedcomRfC - and intend to go from there atp, per your advice. And yes, I would appreciate it very much if you reviewed/advised there, feel free to edit that page as you want.

VM, are you willing to participate in preparing the RfC draft? There are more issues than merely the reliability question, so RSN again would not resolve the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It would help to resolve the part of the dispute that we keep getting stuck on. I think it might also be worth while to try RSN regardless of whether an RfC happens or not.Volunteer Marek 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the issue can be resolved by RSN alone. For example, if the consensus is that Michalek is reliable, how do we resolve the perceived conflicts between Michalek and other sources? If Michalek is found unreliable, it doesn't necessarily mean the map is inaccurate. These are the judgement calls for which we should seek consensus through an RfC. RSN isn't really intended for dispute resolution.
Note that closing the mediation doesn't mean I've given up on this — just that I considered a continuing back-and-forth discussion unlikely to succeed. If we focus on accurately and neutrally framing the issues, I think we can make progress. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
But there are no conflicts between Michalek and other sources. That's the key thing here. And if Michalek's reliability isn't question then that should be dropped from the RfC. Reliability of sources shouldn't be determined by RfC, which in my experience is often driven as much by various political alliances and fillibustering as well as consideration of policy.Volunteer Marek 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary for there to be conflicts in order to ask this question—the only condition is that conflicts are perceived. In any case, it is not necessary to try to persuade me. My role as mediator—now in unofficial capacity—means that I am restricting myself to defining the parameters of the dispute. Clearly, Skäpperöd believes that Michalek conflicts with other sources, or his inclusion would not be an issue. He may be right, or he may be wrong. But either way, we must present both your cases to the community so that a consensus may be reached. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Feezo, I have not noticed that a discussion had continued here, and it seems moot to comment there now. I am about done with the draft, it took me longer than I had initially thought (RL), and I appreciate that you had tweaked it a bit. You are welcome to make changes. I am not certain how we proceed though, since VM has not proposed anything until now. I again asked him on his tp but so far I got no response. I think the best course of action would be to wait some time for a response (VM) and allow further tweaking (two days?), and then run the RfC either on the Medcom page or on talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (that article would be affected by all proposals, whereas Lutici is only affected by the 1121/map proposals)? Maybe the 1121 proposal won't be challenged by VM though and could be implemented w/o RfC. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion on VM's talk page since the above, we may be able to proceed once his concerns are resolved. It might be confusing to run the RfC on Medcom, since it's technically a closed case, so I agree that the talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages is probably the best place. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Bowen for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Bowen 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/Arthur Bowen 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment Publications[edit]

Hi Feezo,

I'm wondering why Entertainment Publications page was deleted. We value our Wikipedia page and want people to know about the business. We just obtained it and the text of the old Wikipedia page is of sentimental value to us.

Thanks, MP (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there—
The primary reason I deleted the page is that it appeared to contain material taken from the company's website. Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that content be published under two particular free licenses to be used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information.
There is another issue—Wikipedia's function is that of an encyclopedia, not a business directory or marketing service, and articles are expected to be written from a neutral point of view. I encourage you to read our FAQ for organizations for more information. You will also find instructions there on how to proceed should you wish to recreate the article.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice for the maturing editor[edit]

On the subject of the status of Puerto Rico, I'm not exactly a newbie, but the discussion is off the rails. I'm accused of being the IP who started the discussion unreasonably, when I tried to make it reasonable. My instinct now is to do more research and return to the topic in a year, except other editors keep bringing it up on United States, Puerto Rico, Insular articles. In this round, I suggested to Ahnoneemoos that language be crafted for a RfC, he ran it to a DRN, and no volunteer took it. Four editors showed up for unequivocal “unincorporated” without notice of a controversy, three editors showed up for allowing a statement of the controversy without losing “unincorporated”. It seemed to be a runaway train without a volunteer. That can't be good.

At the article Puerto Rico it reports its status as “unincorporated”, which it is for some purposes, as sourced, such as the revenue clause of the Constitution at the Downes" Supreme Court case. I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article.

To me, the issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative. -- Whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article introduction -- how PR is "unincorporated" and "incorporated" as alternately sourced. And the bias of WP should be to include sourced information. But I am missing something, it cannot be easy, TransporterMan recused himself at the DRN.

The response of opposing editors is, there is no controversy but my original research and soapboxing. If I point out editors here have not supported the “unincorporated” with scholarly sources, -- including articles found in “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” -- the answer seems to be that scholarly sources have no place in the discussion in the face of their individual interpretation of online “official” sources. At some basic level I sought to improve the article with reliably sourced information, and I got my hat handed to me. What do you think is reasonable for a maturing editor to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tony the Marine's post on your talk page explains the situation pretty well, I think. Political disputes are among the most difficult to resolve, since viewpoints tend to be inflexible and subjective. For this reason, I've found that structured processes like RfC, which can establish consensus within a larger body of editors, tend to be more successful than freeform debate in the original group. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I kicked off an RfC at Puerto Rico, but for this round I don't think there is much more that I can say on the subject to be more persuasive. I placed a notice of the RfC on the project pages which list Puerto Rico as priority, Puerto Rico, Latin America, United States, to publicized it. In the mean time I want to double check my interpretation of sources with a notice on reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Dear Feezo,

I noticed you were an on the Mediation Committee. I appreciate your guidance. I have politely the discussed a recent addition to the article Israel on the talk page. Some editors Talk:Israel#Palestinian state are refusing to cooperate in any form of dispute resolution. One is willing, but only if the resolution is binding. I strongly believe this issue requires the assistance of an admin and I favor dispute resolution and/or mediation, but their resistance is bring us to a standstill. I strongly support resolving this issue peacefully and I ask for your assistance and/or advice.

You may read the talk page yourself. If you would like my summary of the dispute, I say it as follows:

There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively," ignoring WP:UNDUE for the lead.

All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica; Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies, Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease). All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established, and it does not appear on any mainstream maps. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine. Same with most Wikipedia articles.[2]

Indeed, discussion of the status of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. The intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology (using West Bank & Gaza Strip, or Palestinian territories).

--Precision123 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello—I notice that Georgewilliamherbert has imposed a temporary editing restriction on you regarding the article in question. While your frustration is understandable, I highly suggest allowing it to expire before deciding whether to pursue this topic further. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider edit on handcuff article[edit]

Dear Freezo, I see that you have monitored the edit request page of the Handcuff article. Could you please consider the proposed edit that I posted there on Feb. 28, 2014. Thank you.

Include "Robotic Handcuff" Article

Dear Wikipedia, I would like to resubmit my Robo Restraint article for inclusion in the Handcuffs page. It was removed because the remover said it was a failed technology. I don't think that was a fair appraisal for removal, in that many items discussed in Wikipedia are not in use at the present time. The USPTO has issued a patent on this device and it has been demonstrated successfully at several law enforcement trade shows. Additionally, I don't think that the article is written as an advertisement and would ask that any lines that sound like an advertisement be pointed out to me specifically. I also would like to upload a picture of the device for the article. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Article as follows: A recent development in restraint technology is robotic handcuffs. According to magazine, the device is mounted to the inside rear window sill of a police vehicle. The automated restraint system is operated by the officer activating a belt worn remote control. The system allows the officer to maintain a safe distance, while commanding the suspect to place his hands in the extended Kevlar loops. He then closes the loops, using the remote control. [1] The loops automatically tighten, until they contact the wrists, and then the bands are loosened slightly to achieve the correct fit. This takes place in about 1/2 second. The officer can then proceed with his investigation, or turn his/her attention to a second suspect. The officer can subsequently, apply standard handcuffs to the suspect and then releases him/her from the robo restraint for transport. Robo Restraint can be used in conjunction with a law enforcement or military robot to restraint an individual without officer intervention. [2] Bshul (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshul (talkcontribs)

Sorry for the delay in replying — you're correct that a failed or obsolete technology may be valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, to avoid the problem of giving the technology undue weight, you'll need to demonstrate its significance: for example, did the it result in some kind of social change, or spur further technical advancement? This would have to be supported by reliable, third party sources; a patent and a magazine article probably aren't sufficient. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Telford Memories[edit]

Hi there,

My Wiki page Telford Memories was deleted, using the speedy deletion option, what can I do to get my page re-instated? The Telford Memories page is of great importance in the Telford area of Shropshire in the UK, in a time of economic downturn & recession, this page has lifted the spirits of a whole town, most Facebook pages have around 1,000 Members, Telford Memories is fast approaching 10.000 Members, this Local History page has stirred up some kind of self pride & community spirit among it's residents, would the inclusion of a local press release added onto the page about how the page came to prominence ?

Because of this page, it is expected that on 21st September 2014, that over 21,000 people will assemble at the base of the Wrekin Hill in Shropshire Uk to break four Guinness World Records on the same day, Telford Memories has started something that will go down in the History of the Uk.


Irishbrummie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbrummie (talkcontribs) 12:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! — I deleted the page under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion A7 — no disrespect intended towards Telford or this organization.
Although anyone is allowed to create an article, the page needs to demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines to be eligible for permanent inclusion. In this case, the guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web) — particularly, the criteria section. If you think you can show that the page meets the criteria, feel free to submit an articles for creation request or create a userspace draft. I can recover the deleted contents for you if you like, but it would probably not be a good idea to recreate the article until another editor has had a chance to review it. Wikipedia:Your first article may be helpful in getting started. If it turns out that the website doesn't meet the notability requirements, you could help improve the Telford article instead.
Feel free to ask me any questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page for assistance. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

edit handcuff page[edit]

dear freezo, May I please have the wiki definition of "failed invention"...without a stated wiki definition, wouldn't labeling my newly patented invention as a "failed invention" seems arbitrary and invalid....please advise.

sincerely, Burt184.227.225.245 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Failure alone doesn't disqualify an invention from inclusion, but a section on a "failed invention that did not have a substantive or lasting impact documented by secondary sources" (my interpretation) would likely constitute undue weight. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Miguel Almonte[edit]

It is an unnecessary re-direct if there is no blurb there like Jason Adam, Lane Adams or Cheslor Cuthbert have. His name just being mentioned shouldn't prevent a G8 in my opinion.--Yankees10 23:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I see this would be consistent with the rest of the players in the table. You might want to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Miguel Almonte. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

More sockpuppets[edit]

Včelka Mája 2 (talk · contribs · block log) seems like a rather obvious sockpuppet of Vačice Vejvančice (talk · contribs · block log), a user you already blocked for sockpuppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. I've also semi-protected Maya the Bee (character). Let me know of any further mischief. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at this too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you'd already noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 5 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)

Removing talk page access for blocked user[edit]

The user Blokni mě, whom you blocked about a month ago, is using their talk page to make personal attacks [3] - it might be a good idea to remove their editing rights to that page. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done. I have zapped the page and reblocked the account with no talk page access. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


could you do the page "List of Turkic dynasties and countries" protected, those who are not logged destroys only. Mehmeett21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talkcontribs) 13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Dmcontributor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mediator required[edit]

I ask for your input at RfM/Ayers Rock. It has been almost a month since your last entry.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Feezo, I have added the Pro case for using M's quote. However, could you please sign your RfC draft proposal so that other editors don't get the idea that I put that forward. Btw, I think the draft looks good.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to add the RfC to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music/Article alerts listing?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I added a wikiproject banner; that should take care of it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal of semi-protection from my userpage[edit]

Hi, a few years back you helped me out by semi-protecting my userpage (at the time it drew ire from vandals due to anti-vandalism work). Nowadays I work in quieter areas so I think it'll be fine as unprotected, if you wouldn't mind. Many thanks, benmoore 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)