User talk:Fæ/2012/F

Wikipedia is ten years old this year.

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 16, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne Hoard is the largest hoard of late Roman silver and gold discovered in Britain. Found by a metal detectorist in the village of Hoxne in Suffolk, England on 16 November 1992, the hoard consists of 14,865 Roman gold, silver and bronze coins from the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and approximately 200 silver tableware and gold jewellery items. The hoard is now on permanent display in the British Museum and is valued at £4.5 million. The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, which coincides with the end of Britain as a Roman province. The Hoxne Hoard contains several rare and important objects, including a gold body-chain and silver-gilt pepper-pots. The Hoxne Hoard is also of particular archaeological significance because it was excavated by professional archaeologists with the items largely undisturbed and intact. The find has helped to improve the relationship between metal detectorists and archaeologists, and influenced a change in English law regarding finds of treasure. (more...)

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

ok i have removed advertising material so please remove the template Db-g11 from that page(talk)

DYK for British Library Philatelic Collections

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy vs too speedy 2

I must agree with the editor above. I created an article for Paul Drury with one line after having had an hours work lost due to a tech blip. Within one minute of me saving the initial text you had it tagged for notability and references. If you had waited only a few minutes you would have seen the detail and the references coming. This behaviour is very off putting for people trying to create articles. We may not be following guidelines exactly, but please give other contributors, who are giving up time to Wikipedia a bit of breathing speace before you tag them. You say above that oyu will think twice before doing this so quickly.Please wait at least ten minutes before applying these tabs. Kunchan (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive the page stalking but I noticed this comment and wanted to chime in. While I can understand that it can be frustrating to have something quickly tagged for deletion, you've got to put yourself in Fæ's shoes as well. How was Fæ to know that you intended to add more to the article? How is he/she to differentiate this article from the hundreds of junk articles that get created each week with little more than a single line. Some editors like to save frequently and that's fine. If this is how you like to work, consider adding {{underconstruction}} to the top. That lets everyone know whats going on and will give you some time to bring the article up the point where new page patrollers wont have a problem with it. --RadioFan (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Kunchan - Please add comments at the bottom of talk pages, otherwise they are likely to be missed. In this case your point is misplaced as the above comment refers to speedy deletion notices rather than improvement templates for which there is no consensus or recommendation to ignore poor articles in case someone might come along "in the next few minutes". In addition to RadioFan's suggestion, please refer to WP:DRAFT for an explanation of how to create draft articles if you would prefer not to receive improvement notices.

Though you have since added a lot of footnotes to this article, most appear to be fairly meaningless and unverifiable, for example you have referred to "Paul Drury: Artist and Printmaker, University of London, 1984" five times and it could be a book, a general note or something else as without an ISBN, OCLC or some other kind of reference there is no way of telling. You should also note that general searches such as http://www.mfa.org/search/collections?keyword=paul+drury are not considered reliable sources as they are subject to change as the underpinning data changes, please refer to the specific article or collection. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the critiques of the article - the reference you mention is a book (University of London are the publishers). The general searches come from links to art galleries collections - I refer to the actual colleciton in the article - so I'll add more details in the ref. The references are not 'mostly meaningless and unverifiable' - I find that insulting, as the article is a well-referenced and much better than most on Wikipedia. All the references have publisher details and dates. I have spent considerable time writing, researching and verifying this article - and feel we should be more supportive of each other. We are all equal members of Wikipedia. You haven't actually refered to my main request - to allow 10 mins before you tag an article? Thanks 86.176.39.149 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "meaningless" is based on not being able to identify what the footnotes relate to. The term "unverifiable" is in the sense of the policy expressed by WP:V. The sources such as database searches explicitly fail WP:RS and WP:ELNO. The newspaper article referred to is presumably an obituary (which it does not make clear) but I have not been able to verify it so far. The website http://www.makers.org.uk appears rather compromised as a source as it is a promotional website with no clear editorial policy which means that single sourcing statements against it would not be recommended. The books you have referenced have no page numbers, which weakens their veracity as sources as one cannot expect other editors to read the entirety of every book referenced before judging if the citations are being correctly applied to the text of the article. I have, however, taken the page off my watch-list as if I started tagging all the outstanding problems you would probably find it less than helpful. Fæ (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, as for your 10 minutes suggestion, no, I'll not be adopting it as it is not considered best practice for improvement tags. Fæ (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the database sources - they were only showing works in the collections and I wasn't sure how to 'evidence' them - and from your previous posts I gather this doesn't need referencing. I've aded the ISBN numbers (the books are, of course) verifiable - as for adding the paged numbers - I've checked your articles and it is not something you do yourself consistently - other editors are not meant to be reading books to verify sources (or even verifying sources quoted) - usually we think that if someone has taken the trouble to write a referenced article (one that had, in this case, been outstanding for several years), we give them the benefit of the doubt. As fot not metioning in the Daily Telegraph reference that the article is an obituary - the referenced text does that. We can all take an overzealous stance towards editing - I'm glad we don't as we soon run out of members.

You have every right not to adopt the 10 minutes - but I'm not sure where it dsays that adding tags 1 minute after an article has been created is best practice either. Let's agree to disagree on what is 'nice' practice on thisKunchan (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no paragon of virtue and doubtless in my 47,500 contributions over the last year you will be able to find many sloppy edits. However you will note that good articles (or better) invariably use page numbers for cited books and it is common sense best practice. Happy to agree to disagree, that's really how Wikipedia works best. Fæ (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

drop me a line (Vindolanda tablets)

• please drop me a line when you want me to look at Vindolanda tablets. Tks. – Peacock.Lane 02:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Replied on your page, will be spending a bit of time on it today. Fæ (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll have a little time tomorrow.. will look at it then. Cheers – Peacock.Lane 11:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for RPPing my user page!

Thank you: A few hours of Huggling and it needs semi-protection? Sigh. Thanks for keeping an eye out and RPPing. See you at the London meetup next weekend. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being abused by vandals seems to be a badge of honour. :) Fæ (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Camberwell Public Baths

The article Camberwell Public Baths you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Camberwell Public Baths for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the review discouraging, so will not be returning to the article within the time limit suggested. Fæ (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

International Dunhuang Project

Just to let you know, the article was GA reviewed and quick failed this morning, which was a little disappointing. The reviewer was concerned about undue bias and reliance on the IDP site, but given that there are no reliable 3rd party sources to use for information about the IDP, I see no way of correcting this issue. Thanks anyway for your help with the article. BabelStone (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this has not got through yet, particularly as apart from the sources problem, the article seems to tick the rest of the GA criteria. This would be an good issue to discuss with the researchers in the IDP whenever they have their wiki-week or related editathon. In my discussion with the BL English Lit. department, one key suggestion was to provide recommended bibliographies for key articles rather than going to the effort of a detailed review by a curator; this seems to be an article where a good bibliography would make a big difference. Fæ (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added my responses to the GA review at Talk:International_Dunhuang_Project/GA1. I could (and should) use non-IDP sources for referencing the collecting activities of Stein, Pelliot, Kozlov, etc., but I don't see any possibility of finding any reliable and useful 3rd party sources about the history and activities of the IDP itself, so I'm afraid that it may never reach GA status, never mind FA. After two successive GAN failures of what I consider to be well-referenced, well-written and comprehensive articles I'm beginning to wonder whether it is worth trying to jump through hoops in order to get wiki-accolades when I all I really want to do is write good articles about topics that interest me. BabelStone (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the GA/FA process is useful and in talking to both the BM and BL these are easy to understand quality targets to set (and easy to see when they are achieved). The IDP problem of sources is unusual for such a notable project and considering that so many highly notable institutions are part of the project, I would personally consider any peer reviewed publication a suitable source even if from the IDP and it is not a hard requirement in WP:GACR for there to be multiple independent sources for the text of the article. I do however agree that if the article is overly single-sourced to the website (as opposed to printed publications) I would struggle with agreeing this as best practice. Saying all that, you have done sterling work on this article and I fully support your viewpoint that the important thing is to write what interests you most. The British Library are planning other editathon events later in the year and I suggest that it might be a better use of time to move on to other articles and leave the GA debate to another time rather than letting it bog you down. Fæ (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of GLAM/BL, it might be better to say that GA/FA isn't the target: the ultimate target is having as good an article as possible on the subject, and that getting GA or FA is a nice bonus. If the article is as good as it can possibly be and it remains a stub, that's fine. (Eventualism? I dunno. More like just another challenge in helping target-driven public institutions navigate the rough and tumble of Wikipedia.) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Creating and improving articles is the real goal, and once you start explicitly aiming for GA or FA status you are in danger of losing sight of that goal, and it all becomes a box-ticking exercise which does not necessarily make the article any better -- and in some cases it can make the article worse (which I thought was the case with Hoxne Hoard, which in my opinion was not improved by the FA review exercise). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Thanks for suggesting to site References correctly. Since I am kinda new, I don't know how to cite them properly. But still thanks for telling. Gleb (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For you!

		The British Library barnstar
		For getting those two articles to GA, I present to you, the British Library barnstar. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RD! Fæ (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GLAM portals?

Hey Fæ,

I was wandering around the BM today and had a thought about a potentially easy win for GLAM: Portals. I don't quite know what the best way to proceed with this idea is, so I hope you don't mind if I run it past you. Imagine if you went to something like Portal:British Museum or Portal:British Library and it contained links to lots and lots of articles about the things you can find in the particular institutions. You go to the BL portal and it's filled with articles, pictures, sounds and other content from across Wikimedia related to stuff that's on show in the BL. (I see there are some bits and pieces that have been put together in subpages of Portal:British Library, but there isn't yet a main page for Portal:British Library.

Basically, I'm thinking with GLAMs, the portals could go in a slightly different direction than they do already. They could show what is in the museum, and basically be a Wikipedia counterpart to the real life museum. With the BL, that means you might have a list of all the works in the permanent collection on the Portal page with links to the relevant articles (like Magna Carta, Gutenberg Bible etc.). Same with the BM: a chunk of the portal page could be organised along the same lines that the exhibitions are. You can then imagine someone getting home from poking all around the BM or another major institution like the Natural History Museum or Science Museum and be able to explore Wikipedia along the same set of conceptual threads you had while exploring the museum.

If you went to the BM one, you might find a listing of objects in the BM that have Wikipedia pages, along with topics they are related to. In the BM one, you might have a section on, say, Enlightenment topics, and another section on the African galleries.

This will probably work better for institutions like the BM or, say, the National Gallery or the Louvre.

I'm not sure whether this will be problematic with Wikipedia policies and what the best way to seek community consensus on how to build this. That might be through the Village Pump, or through RfC, or just by seeking consensus on, say, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM or Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BL and then being bold and going ahead with one. Portal policy seems deliberately vague on what could become a portal, and a GLAM institution portal would definitely "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas", but I'm not sure whether it would fall foul of either the COI/NPOV policies (re. the feeling that the portals may be promotional for the particular GLAM institutions) or WP:OR (WP:P says that all the core policies apply like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. apply to portals just as much as they do to mainspace. Then again, Portal:BBC exists, as does Portal:British Army. But imagine if Portal:BBC were a guide to Wikipedia content about BBC shows but through the lens of what is currently being broadcast. That might raise some problems in terms of neutrality and WP:OR (ignoring the fact that it would currently probably be a copyvio because of the copyright status of TV schedules).

I'm also not totally sure how it will be thought of by the GLAM institutions that WP/WMF/WMUK are reaching out to. The positive is that it's a way to explore Wikipedia content through the lens of what they can see in a particular GLAM institution. The negative is that they may see it as competition for their own web efforts. I can imagine that if such a portal existed, it might be the sort of place a GLAM institution could link to from their site. Their mainspace articles may be good, but they aren't necessarily interesting for the visitor. I mean, people go to somewhere like the BM not because the BM is interesting but to see the exhibits. And although the exhibits are often temporary, people will often want to read up on what they've already seen.

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be concerned about maintainability unless there were a keen set of maintainers (intuitively I feel the same way about newsletters, which tend to draw time away from collaboration activities and that's why I prefer to think about long term case-studies rather than "news"). I would think there could be enough interest in a Portal:Museums (which avoids the issue of it being a COI) and could hierarchically sit under Portal:History. However as a more specific interesting page for our collaborations, I wonder how funky it would be to have a BM or BL floor plan article using the {{Overlay}} or similar template? An exploded plan of rooms in the British Museum which cross-linked to articles about the room theme, collection category, photo category or particular artefact would be pretty useful as an adjunct for the main article. The BM reading room changes its special exhibition every few months and this would impose only a relatively small maintenance burden.

It would be a good topic to chat about at the next London meet-up. Fæ (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind be adding by 2c, I've started work on the BL portal, Tom, but haven't finished it yet. That's why there is no main page for it. I can put it up, if you wish, but there would be some modules on the page which would be blank. However, if you are willing to help me, it could be done it a couple of days. I do like the idea, though, of having different sections for each exhibit. However, Portals are usually about exhibiting the best Wikipedia content on a particular. But rules are there to be broken. Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Portals are good, but I think that the solution is a new wiki that allows for unnotable additions to an article. Probably needs some paper to discuss at length but here goes. But lets imagine I'm a zoo with a zebra called "Zed". I would like to mention that "Zed is 14 years old and was born here in this zoo and is fed at 4pm etc". If you want to know more about Zebras then there is a link here. If you want pictures then they are here. If you would like a list of other zoos nearby that have a zebra then click here. This solution I think solves the maintenance problem that Fae spoke about. The zoo writes a few sentences about "Zed"; the stuff about zebras comes from wikipedia, the pictures from common, maybe some stuff from wikispecies and the latter is just category data. Sorry Fae I couldnt resist adding to this conversation. Obviously I have shown a GLAM solution but it also works for other subjects where a user has some locally notable stuff that it wants maintained by an external database.... mostly. But nuff said Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't so much thinking about for zoos, but for institutions which in general cover things which are of high cultural significance. Take the British Museum. They have just concluded an enormous, stunning exhibition on the Book of the Dead and shown an enormous collection of items related to ancient Egyptian death rituals and beliefs. In addition, they have exhibitions on Afghanistan, Eric Gill, Asian Buddhism, and an exhibition on drawing (the Picasso and Julie Mehretu). But just stick with the Book of the Dead exhibition: on a BM portal page, imagine you've got two columns with articles about stuff of general interest about the museum on the one side and on the other, a list of current major special or temporary exhibitions. In that column, for each of the current exhibitions and, say, the last five recently finished exhibitions, you include links to a huge amount of encyclopedia content and links to the relevant categories and pages on Commons, and on Wikisource, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. If it is significant, maybe even Wikinews may have covered it.

Now for the Book of the Dead exhibition at the BM, why not the Commons category, Wikisource for the Papyrus of Ani, then the following articles: Book of the Dead, Ancient Egypt, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Hieratic, Art of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Egyptian religion, Osiris Ancient Egyptian burial customs, Mummification, Canopic jar, Pyramid texts, Coffin texts, Book of Breathing, Papyrus, Senet, List of Book of the Dead spells, Duat, a few of the pharoes and others whose remains were exhibited and so on. Maybe even Death deity. And from Commons, we could use an image to illustrate. And relevant WikiProjects, categories, maybe a nice historiographical text on Wikisource. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for support Fæ. Getting some advice from someone is always helpful :). Gleb (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too for sorting out the Nancy Grace thing. Yes, I was trying to revert vandalism, but perhaps not that successfully! Heywoodg (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A little help

I wanted to add this picture to this article. Picture seems to be copyright-free. I just wanted a little help uploading it properly, so it doesn't get removed. Thanks for your help so far. Gleb (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this photo is 'all rights reserved' so would not be suitable. I'll add some standard help about photo uploading to your talk page for you to browse through though. Cheers Fæ (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Black Stone Violin

Dear Fæ.. This is Lars Widenfalk, Poderedellaluna, who's writing. I'v tryed to make my text(Blackbird. The Black stone violin) a little more encyclopedic and placed it in Village pump, proposals.. and requests for feedback.. Silence! Can U please give me a hint how to proceed?What about photos? where to place them? Regards Lars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poderedellaluna (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Poderedellaluna/Blackbird. The Black Stone Violin

Hi, I have taken another quick look and tweaked the format a little. My opinion is that this would fail the criteria of WP:GNG for notability and still reads as highly promotional rather than encyclopaedic. For notability of an artistic creation to be notable enough for an article, there would need to be significant impact demonstrated in independently published sources and I do not believe that everything mentioned in Ripley's Believe It or Not is notable in the sense intended on Wikipedia. It may be easier to justify an article for yourself as an artist rather than one creation if there were sufficient independent sources. I am sorry that your request on RFF had no replies, it may be worth posting a note there for a second time. Fæ (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of kwik questions ...

• Was this ever published? (I don't read as much as I should)

  No, I thought that Charles would pick it up but now I think he might have expected me to paste it into his newsletter - we probably should use it somewhere else, such as Rock Drum's GLAM newsletter.

• I have also written a think piece .... any comments on this?

  I like it, perhaps you might consider focusing it into an Wikipedia essay though it could easily be bundled in with the Outreach case study or project briefing note. The technical side could do with some thought from someone like Tom Morris, not sure if he has spent any more time on the QR code solution yet. I am still considering our lack of published papers from these events, and maybe our curator and academic collaborators would like to add their name to a short briefing paper for the Journal of the Society of Archivists or similar?

• Do you know how we can get a list of Derby articles and how many we have that are starts, stubs, Cs etc. This is the classic Quality v. Size table for a Wikiproject.... I can't spot how to do it.

  This is tricky and means ensuring that the associated WikiProject categories are sorted out. I fluffed this up previously and we could do with a projects wizard to sort it out. Perhaps Rock Drum might know more, if not we could got somewhere like the History project team to fish for an expert? I know that the tool to set it up automatically takes sysop privilege to use and that's why I was not able to sort it out myself before (presumably as you can cause a giant mess very quickly).

• I would like to ask you whether you would be prepared to give a talk on April 9th targetted at the non wikipedians. Title may be How is Wikipedia different from a museum". (I am trying to get wikipedians, curators AND local historian types.) Is that OK? Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, when I said I was flattered, that meant that I was not coming along - it's a bit tight with other activities and the 6 hour round trip from the wrong side of London is a bit of a hike; sorry about that as it would have been a fun day. Fæ (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your mentions of me: I'd be happy for that article on the WMUK wiki to appear in the newsletter, although you may want to update it a bit to be more relevant (eg. there are now two Wikipedians-in-residence active: Indianapolis and France). About the assesment table, I can't help you there. Mike sorted that out for the BL project (I just did the pages - all the complicated stuff with the assessment makes my brain hurt fO_O). Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to set aside 3 days and a box of painkillers to understand how Mike does this stuff. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a while still, until publication, but can one of you guys (or both of you, if you want) go through the article and update/copyedit it, please? Thanks in advance, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Camberwell Public Baths

There is a thread involving a matter with which you may be involved at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Camberwell Public Baths. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Intercontinental Church of God

The Intercontinental Church of God article under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article entitled: 'Church of God International (USA)' JoVaM. 10.03.2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article: The Intercontinental Church of God is currently under discussion:

The contents of this article have been transferred to the article Church of God International (USA). JoVaM, 10.03.2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoVaM (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the article becoming a redirect, at the moment it seems to fail WP:CFORK. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Parenting websites

That article on a parenting website which you tagged for speedy deletion a few minutes ago - it was much too spammish in tone, yes, but it did assert notability. I've cleaned it up.

Thanks just the same. DS (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did take a browse through but nothing jumped out at me that it seemed notable, a G11 would have been a better choice though. Looking again, I can see "Supersavvyme also has frequent celebrity contributors including journalist and TV presenter Lowri Turner[7], financial journalist and founder of SavvyWoman.co.uk, Sarah Pennells and style writer and author Mimi Spencer." which I admit to overlooking the first time and I agree is sufficient to make A7 not fly. Thanks for picking me up on that one. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus they're owned by megacorp Proctor and Gamble. DS (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

True, however at the time I flagged it, the wording was "P&G’s supersavvyme" so it didn't make an impression on me and I'm not sure I would agree that everything a large notable corporation owns is itself automatically notable though it may give you pause. However I put my hands up to this one, and confess I could have picked a better tag and taken a second look at the links embedded in the first version, I'll try harder to get them spot on all the time. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, I've taken the article off my watchlist but it seems evident that the creator has chosen a name that indicates a conflict of interest with the website. I don't want them to feel pursued by raising another user-warning but you may want to advise them of the CHU process. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

nice to meet you Fæ thank you so much please help me. because I don't understand wikipedia style...Minho Kim

I have left some handy help on your talk page, please take a little time to read through the guidelines. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• To Fae,

How are you? I am sending you this message because I believe you are the only user who could understand this situation, and provide assistance. First of all, I had no purpose of ADVERTISEMENT nor PROMOTE for Lim Hyung-Joo's article. Second, Apart from posting Lim Hyung Joo's article, I just added the name 'Lim Hyung-Joo' in "a tenor" and "people born in 1986" categories. (I would undone the work if it's needed) I don't understand why JzG DELETED Lim Hyung Joo. JzG(Guy) blocked my IP address, so I am using different IP address to contact you. It's okay for him to block my IP address, but I wish Lim Hyung-Joo's article undeleted. I am still a novice in Wikipedia, so please give me a way to fix this problem. Thank you for reading my message, and hope to hear from you soon...Minho Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.47.68.17 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am aware of the issue and made a comment on Guy's talk page. I am committed this week but will follow up again next week so that the discussion can be properly resolved. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle NPP - CSD patrolling

I noticed that you tagged William Urasaki for CSD using Twinkle just now, but it didn't get marked as patrolled. Did you get any errors from Twinkle telling you about this? (I am currently trying to repair Twinkle CSD, particularly patrolling, so any feedback would be welcomed.) Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this was noted for at least one other article yesterday (can't recall what it was) but there was no error flagged in Twinkle. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So it just said "Marking as patrolled: Done", and yet it didn't actually work? That's no good... I don't know what I can do about that sort of thing. What browser do you use? (Sorry if I'm bothering you, by the way - I don't want to take too much of your time away from the worthy area of NPP...) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it said anything about doing the patrol marking, perhaps it's not detecting it in the first place? I'm using Firefox 3.6.8 within OS X 10.5.8. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Black violin

Hello Fæ.. So I'v just tryed to put a new updaded and cut down version about the Black Violin, The Blackbird.. More encyclopedic.. Its not easy to verify or identify a source, References.. It looks like a problem to verify a written text with photos and different www's thats shows the violin in photos, videos or sound.. Its like wikipedia as a written encylopedic sourse cant grasp the new technology with fxs a photo or video of the item in question.. I tryed to verify the stone violin with this different www's but I am not successful!

I do understand though that no Volunteers sits down and check my different www's- even if its all there.. as the content is verifiable by looking at and visiting the differrent sites!

Its like a moment 22.

I didn't succeed placing some photos of the violin neither.. feels like idiotfilters.. too difficult for me! Poderedellaluna Poderedellaluna (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Eudora Welty's "One Writer's Beginnings"

Fae:

You tagged my article on Eudora Welty's One Writer's Beginnings literally one minute after it was up because it did not meet "notability guidelines for books". The book actually meets several of Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. First, it was written by American author who won a major literary prize, the Pulitzer Prize, in 1973. Second, the book has been referenced in a number of articles on Eudora Welty, including articles on literary criticism. Third, the book is taught at literary programs at universities and colleges in the United States.

It would fall under the same category as Yukio Mishima's Sun and Steel (essay). Could you please remove the tag? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMUWM (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, could you please ensure that the information about the Pulitzer Prize winner and at least some of the listing of it as a college source book is added to the article? The notability tag is intended to encourage other editors to add this sort of information, but as you are already on the case I have already removed it on the assumption that you intend to make notability clear anyway. Cheers Fæ (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the head up and the welcome! :) Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMUWM (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent anti-vandal efforts! Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm

My apologies to you and Paduch. Don't think that was the best bit of wording on my part. What I think I was trying to imply was that if an article had a list (of commercial links) in it, there couldn't be much harm in adding one. I don't like these lists, and wouldn't want to support or suggest creating one. I certainly wasn't expecting him to add others. It looks from his contribs that he's very interested in one subject only. It may not be spam, as they appear to be different companies - but none of the links look worth having in terms of 'further reading'. They would be useful for buying whatever it is they are selling - but that's not what we are here for, as you say. I did say others might disagree, so feel free to remove the lot per the policies. I think these sections may be being phased out - I hope so in general terms. (There was one article that cleverly linked to three companies that on research turned out to be the same outfit...) If there's a howl of anguish, say I was having an off moment. (True...) Incidentally, with regard to commercial links, I removed a commercial site selling Flatbed trolleys, and have now gone through 30 pages of ghits and cannot find an RS for the dear little things. I've used them, more people seem to be selling them than are selling Viagra online, but no-one talks ABOUT them. If you get a dull moment, you could start at Google Page 30. It would at least prove that there was something duller than the moment you were having... Peridon (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As it says on a friend of mine's tee shirt: "pobody's nerfect". Peridon (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. Perhaps you could follow-up on your advice to Paduch about their list, it might seem less confrontational from yourself rather than from the person s/he has just reverted? Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Looks like your nomination is going well so far, good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BCD, and thanks for the interest for those that watch my userpage. Apologies if I have surprised anyone but I have not put a notice in my userspace or discussed my RFA apart from with a minimum handful of people during necessary preparation in order to avoid making anyone feel under pressure to comment and to ensure I avoid any possibility of infringing the guidelines for canvassing. I have no particular expectations and will not tally up who did or did not !vote (so I'll be avoiding thankspam too). If someone does have a question, then please do feel free to drop me a confidential email if you are not comfortable discussing it on-wiki. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

How would an editor become a OTRS volunteer. Please respond on my talk page, Thanks. Gabriele449 03:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fæ (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

XsNr Privacy URL

Hi I found that you have reverted back my edit. Its not at all fare that you reverted it on point that its "NOT NOTABLE" I just started the service a month ago and the response was amazing. You can check my site by yourself. And adding to that, yesterday I have started a new link http://xsnr.x10.mx/japan to support the Japan [ P.S. Im no spammer and Im not asking anyones help. Im here to help ]. If you acknowledge the same or want to drop me a message, feel free in sending that @ facebook.com/nagarohit Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnagarohit (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, however the list you added the link to is a list of existing articles about products. By having its own article, this makes it unambiguous that XsNr is notable and meets the criteria. Please take the opportunity to create an article for the service first if you believe that it is notable against the WP:WEB criteria and you can find suitable reliable sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CANT DO ANYTHING ON THIS ******* THING WHAT A REET — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNITm (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice one

Thanks for the trolley pic. I must apologise to the author and look again for refs now that I've worked out which end of the mop goes in the bucket, and don't seem to have hit anyone with it... Peridon (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit I tried a pretty good hunt for non-commercial sources myself, impossible. The nearest I could find were somewhat tangential mentions in Government health and safety documents which happen to mention flatbed trolleys as part of the range of moving equipment regulated for warehousing. There might be some mileage in using the IKEA example as a frequent place where members of the public use flatbeds. Fæ (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this illustrates a weakness in the notability referencing requirements. Are flatbed trolleys non-notable for an encyclopaedia because there aren't any RS to be found? There's probably quite a lot of things in the same boattrolley. Don't ask me to draft an amendment (yet), but it might be worth raising somewhere when I work out where. The structure of Wikipedia is starting to look like Gormenghast with consensuses the further I get into it... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you take a close look at WP:V (esp. WP:CHALLENGE) there is scope for the blindingly obvious not to need references. There is also no particular reason why sources such as commercial equipment catalogues can't be used as sources so long as there is no particular disproportionate weight to the facts. Fæ (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I skimmed that bit and concentrated on the need for refs. Possibly best to leave the commercial catalogues out until a non-believer in flatbed trolleys comes along and tags it hoax. Might attract the sort of attention I gave it anyway... I think also best to leave the refs tag on - someone might come along with a link to a Govt Working Party report on Trolleys, Flatbed. I'm coming to you for policy advice in future. You opened my eyes there. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My question

Hi Fæ. You are right, your nomination statement should be sufficient to satisfy my curiosity, the rest of the matter is not my business. My question was partially inspired by the comment by User:Keepscases. I'm an old fashioned fool and I can't understand why a person with such a good judgement and intelligence chooses such a way of explanation. People I admire here on Wikipedia are usually capable to explain whatever (in relation to their work on the project) without the help of hidden forums. You've mentioned your previous account and the RFC/U in your statement, you did it voluntarily, with agreement of relevant commitee and in good faith, so I should respect that without questioning. However, when you say A, I assume you are aware that people might ask for B, it is a normal reaction. I understand that Wikipedia is a project with differentiated structure, the status in the hierarchy is very important for many people around here, the adminship is not just a technical facility. Sometimes I forget the importance of the social part of Wikipedia, the online grudge, hostility etc. In any case, you are a good and competent editor, I can say it responsibly because I know your work here. I hope I don't bother you with my (perhaps incompetent) questions and opinions. I wish you all the best. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. At RFA there should be a balance between encouraging questions that help illuminate a candidate's experience and the potential for it to become a sponge throwing competition which would put off future candidates. I have no problem with a few difficult questions being asked, even provocative ones, as these can help show how the candidate deals with difficult issues and tests if they will keep their cool when replying. In this case your question was something that others were probably wondering about and I take no offence from it being posed. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Preamble

This is just a quick message to say: I have seen your reply, (it's good) I am not intending to be your nemesis, (calm down if you are nervous) When I return from work, I will form an appropriate response, To hurry it wouldn't befit the diligence of your own. So it will be later, and there are no negative qualifiers to indicate a thing you should anticipate, Provocative was stronger than I was reaching, with the other, but not out of line. Good luck to you. My76Strat (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reassuring note, I look forward to seeing your response. Fæ (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that OI-10-j.artetxe has returned to edit articles today so I am glad to see that the unnecessary user warnings do not appear to have driven them away. Fæ (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to reconfirm my support. Thank you for your responses, and I'd like to offer my assurance that I have no wish to probe deeper into the previous account. Best. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

hang in there

I think wp loves drama and there is definitely some prurient interest in figuring out who you were, rather than real concern over past crimes. So, likelihood is sure it's a fishing expedition. You were right to strike though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the encouragement. It is unfortunate that clean start is treated on the assumption that there are "past crimes", I'll not be labouring the point in RFA but there are many reasons for clean start and I included the fact that I have never been blocked in my declaration which seems to be rather overlooked. I do regret feeling the need to reply in the discussion section but as it related directly to one of the questions it seemed awkward to strike a comment of mine and not say anything in reply to the related comment. Let's hope that that the remaining 4 days pass quietly without getting too side-tracked into what boils down to lobbying against clean starts and that my single comment in the discussion section remains the only comment. --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Emails, confidentiality and RFA

General statement: I have had several spontaneous emails relating to my RFA and some of these ask about my background previous to my account being created. I am happy to correspond confidentially if anyone has questions or clarifications they would like to take up with me and encourage this as part of good communications. At the same time I would like to ensure that there are absolutely no possible future concerns about there being any sort of clique in operation and so any facts I provide (unless made officially to bureaucrats) I aim to ensure are based on information already shared publicly on-wiki rather than privileged information. Of course, out of common courtesy I would expect my thoughts, opinions and analysis provided by email (and those of other people in any email thread) to be kept off-wiki unless there is positive permission given and as you might expect I provide no warranty that I make no mistakes as I, like you, am only human. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commitment on speedy A1/A3

As I fully agree with the 10 minute consensus for A1/A3 speedy deletion tags and interpreting exceptions is going to remain problematic and debatable, I would like to make a firm commitment to avoid tagging any new article within the first 10 minutes of its creation with these categories. Should anyone spot that I have done so please revert my change if it has not already been done and drop me a note (or trout slap) here for not doing so, as if it happens it would be in error rather than a decision on my part. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)