User talk:Fæ/2012/F

Jim Lemley photo

Permission was granted via email. I re-uploaded the file. & to answer your comment on all rights being reserved; fair use overrides that. However, it is Wikipedia policy to not allow for fair use interpretation of the law. There is a big difference between Wikipedia policy and the law. My source: I am a paralegal for an entertainment law firm. Veritasenlumine (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are in agreement per my article talk page comments. Looking at File:Jim-Lemley-pic-1.jpg you need to follow the Commons:OTRS process (i.e. copying your email to Wikipedia/Commons for verification), this gives a ticket reference so that everyone can see it was real, not just made up by an anonymous user.

Please use the OTRS process and add an Commons:template:OTRS pending template in order to avoid the photo being tagged for deletion again. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I redact my information, because I don't want people to see my email. If this is an issue, I will seek a photo without copyright. Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have posted your email somewhere by accident you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT who will suppress details when reasonable.

If you are referring to the OTRS process, you need not worry as the point of that process is that any information you email to them will be kept as a confidential verifiable record but not be published in the public domain (just given an anonymous ticket number showing it was verified when received). If you redact basic information then it might be rejected (I'm not 100% sure about this, it may be worth sending in a redacted version and asking them; after all what matters is the copyright holder details are credible rather than yours). The OTRS guidance above explains it better than I can. Note, I'm not an admin or bureaucrat so I have no authority to do such things and the folks who join and administer the OTRS scheme are quite rigorously vetted. Fæ (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a note to the image about this thread, please do not forget to add the OTRS pending and delete my notice on the image page once you have emailed in. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble, because I want to send over the email to OTRS, but I can't find where to do that. Could you help to send me the address so that I may forward the email to them? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See this page on Commons. The email address is written in the declaration of consent box. Take your time as it can take ages for OTRS to process tickets so you really want to get it right first time. Fæ (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so lastly, does the photo need to be removed, pending OTRS response? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be okay now. Based on the chat here I have added the right template for OTRS pending and removed the unsourced tag. If OTRS has received and eventually accepts your email there should be nothing more to do. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne on the main page

Hi, November 18 is the find-date for the Hoxne Hoard. I was going to nominate it for the main page then at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, which can't be done until 30 days before, till I realized that if it's the nominator's first time on the main page you get an extra point, which I won't get. Could you do it? Without research, I see it able to claim: date 1, contrib 1, diversity 1, mp rep 2 = 5, which should be enough. The last 2 or 3 depend on it being regarded as Roman & archaeological rather than as BM, but I think that is only right. There's no rush, as it can't be done until the 19th or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I'll investigate over the next day or two as a first timer. I've been distracted by OTRS and dealing with vandalism for quite some time, so I could do with being dragged back into the light for slightly less gnomic contributions. Fæ (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

NB, the article states a find-date of November 16th. Draft started at User:Fæ/tfar. Now raised at WP:TFAR. Fæ (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Attack!

Hi. Thanks for tagging new pages, but Top 100 terrorists was tagged by you as A7. This should have been tagged as {{db-attack}}, since it clearly singled out one guy to disparage him! Err on the side of caution if the content looks inflammatory toward a person/group/thing.

Otherwise, thanks again. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, though killing 10 mosquitoes with one hand is not that particularly disparaging as a description of the terrorism involved. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seemed to make fun of the guy. Who knows. Why can't these people just go do something constructive? :) — Timneu22 · talk 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my talk page. I'd've probably responded if I found it first, and well, just because I have troll snacks doesn't mean I should give them out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Considering the rather nasty use of the c-word, probably better to not respond directly. Fæ (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, that editor's rather off view of reality (I don't have the power to enact non-existant blocks... Do I?). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He he, just went back in time to re-read it, classic rant. I had actually missed half the swearing on my first skim through. As you say, probably not quite the same reality that Wikipedia tries to exist within. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User 217.206.212.92

Hi,

I'm a little new at this Wiki stuff, but I recently undid the edit that User 217.206.212.92 did on the Muse article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muse_(band)&oldid=390271695

Now, i'm not sure if I should leave a message on his talk page, since he's already been warned about this article, among others. Since you're the last one to have warned him, do you think you could give me a clue on what to do, or do it for me? Thanks,

PatrickAnimi —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickAnimi (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given a (final) warning for that edit as it was unarguably blatant vandalism. The general guidelines for this sort of thing are at VANDALISM and if you don't already use it TWINKLE is the ideal tool to use, though you may want to build up your experience a little before issuing user warnings. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see

Please see here for an interesting essay. Mootros (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist sex abuse cases

Thread was subject to WQA notice, user now has an indef block for abusive comments.

I contributed this article which has now been deleted following your tag (but which I was unaware of until I noticed the page had been deleted). Why didn't you contact me on my talk page to say you had tagged the article for deletion? In the discussion page I had made it clear that I was the contributing editor and had had faithfully addressed the only issues raised concerning Ole Nydahl. As things stand an article I contributed in good faith and had spent a lot of time on has been deleted without my ever being able to respond to the issues raised, which appear mostly to centre around a naive belief that sexual relationships must necessarily be criminal to be abusive. But sexual relations between a teacher and student are always held to be abusive. See the wiki entry here. I have requested the page be restored here and I ask you to restore the page yourself. Rinpoche (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Rinpoche, you may have misunderstood what I can do or what I did. Some points about this page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 15 seems an extensive discussion where you are free to air your views and have already had some good (and some rather robust) feedback from some experienced editors and admins. This is the correct place to ask for the deletion to be overturned if you have a case. It may also be possible to ask for a copy to be userfied (or emailed to you) if you wish to create or draft a different article based on similar content at some future date. I do not have the authority to undelete articles or delete them as I am not an admin. As far as I recall I repeatedly attempted to remove some poorly sourced information from the page and then raised it to WP:BLPN (to avoid edit-warring) for someone independent to take a look at what I considered inappropriate material against the BLP guidelines. Shortly after, one of the BLPN folks must have put the page up for speedy deletion on BLP grounds or deleted it outright on their own (admin) authority. In summary, you are doing the right thing by challenging the deletion at DRV and if you believe that a similar (but better sourced) article would be encyclopaedic then I suggest you ask for userfication (including the article talk page) so that you can research, re-write and then get review feedback before re-issuing an article. Take a deep breath (try some calming tea). I hope this is helpful. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I'm already replying to the points raised in that forum. I don't agree at all they're robust, rather or otherwise. I find them naive and confused. I don't need a nice cup of tea and a sitdown thank you. I don't need to take a deep breath. I don't find you helpful and in the circumstances I disbelieve you hope you're being helpful. Rather I would like you to explain why you didn't notify me as the main contributer that you had flagged my article for deletion, why the template wasn't maintained on the page so I could see it when I checked it (and I was checking it daily because of the entirely uncontroversial Ole Nydahl material being deleted) and come to that why you didn't respond to my invitation to discuss the issues when I reverted the deletion you say you made. Each time I made a reversion I noted it on the discussion page. In short why I wasn't allowed to participate in the debate and why you didn't respond to my invitation to debate your concerns. Do feel free to ponder these weighty concerns over a cup of tea whatever or otherwise but I would like a response. Rinpoche (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry if my last reply was not clear. I did not flag the article for deletion, I raised it for discussion on WP:BLPN. I have no access to deleted versions of articles, but you can ask an admin to check deleted versions if you have good cause. The point of having a watchlist is that a change to articles you are interested in is automatically flagged on your watchlist or even an RSS feed for use in other applications when not logged in. There is no convention to expect to be notified about a deletion template being added to an article if you are not the article creator, you are instead expected to pick this up on your own watchlist. You are free to continue disbelieving anything I say, but you should be aware that good practice on Wikipedia is to assume good faith whenever there is possible doubt. As you have stated you find me unhelpful, I suggest you seek any further help you need from someone else as attempting to help you does not seem a good use of my time or yours. You may want to try the WP:HELPDESK as a starting point. Fæ (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) THank you. I'm glad I'm free to do something on Wikipedia and I do disbleieve you. As it happened I ticked both the watch box and had a RSS feed on it with Google Reader (though in fact the facility for an RSS feed has been withdrawn on GR and you have to use some other recommended procedure I did implement). I still didn't pick it up. I was the article creator and there is a convention of informing the article creator about a deletion template. Why didn't you extend that courtesy? Why didn't you discuss the issues as I invited you to on the discussion page? Rinpoche (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I use Twinkle to flag articles for speedy, PROD or AfD deletion. This automatically notifies contributors. As I did not flag the article for deletion this never happened. Should you need to have this explained to you in more detail I suggest you try the links above as previously suggested. As you have stated twice that you disbelieve me I shall not be answering any more of your questions here. Bye. Fæ (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The BLPN thread begins with this from you After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC) However you spin it, it was you who initiated this process and you did not extend me the courtesy of informing me. I did not revert any deletion of yours in your account name unless it was an IP deletion or from another account and for each reversion I made I noted in the edit summary that I had referred to it on the talk page and there gave my reasons and asked for dialogue. If I had seen your concerns I would have noted first of all that unambiguous definition of terms is not common in discourses and in any case I began the article with a clear description of what was meant by 'abuse' in the context of the article. Even in the drafting of legislation where great care is taken to be unambiguous there is nevertheless a need to leave some terms undefined: for example 'nation' in EU leglislation, 'indecent' in UK criminal legislation (in the context of child protection) - the examples are legion. In any case it is perfectly well understood what abusive sexual behaviour amounts to and abusive behaviour need not be criminal. In particular teacher-student sexual relationships are universally regarded as abusive on the part of the teacher. The selection criteria was mentioned in the article - that the individuals involved had founded Buddhist groups at the forefront of the emerging Western Buddhist movement. I continue to disbelieve your good faith. Good or bad I think you are both simple and contemptible. I wish you no good will whatsoever and I expressly do not wish you goodbye. Rinpoche (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Just added a bit of a break in the discussion. I can understand why some might find such a process frustrating, though I would firmly support a full lock of the article (if needed) for, say, a week, in order to give time for such a consensus to evolve. It is pretty hard to stay annoyed at a computer screen for a week :) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you annoyed? I don't understand what you are on about? Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to either of us. Only the threat to edit in advance of consensus by RR which appears intemperate. The Shamir article is something that seems a bit of a difficult (and maybe depressing) topic to cover. I'll slow down my contributions to the talk page a bit (once a day would probably be enough) as the discussion has become a bit heated. I'm hoping to be seen as neutral, particularly as I'm not looking to edit the article myself or 'win' any arguments.

If you feel my proposal is unhelpful I would rather withdraw from the article and leave the resolution to your discretion as an experienced editor. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, although I don't think there was a need to break the discussion .. your contributions are valuable and I hope you can continue to stay in the loop .. this issue is perhaps the focal point and consensus in needed. I would rather drop out and allow you to continue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how it was created... totally attacking, weakly cited and POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&diff=378446241&oldid=378432813 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Style-radius

Template:Style-radius 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. — Edokter • Talk • 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks Fæ (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Q

I left a question for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Plaza Mall. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response and for that useful link. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

You forgot to add the fair use rationale to File:It Gets Better.png a few hours ago. I expect that it qualifies, but the rationale still needs to be there. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

please help

Extended content

I wrote that unconstructive article in order to know who is administer. I want to talk to administer very sorry! Korea Wikipedia (Ko.wikipedia.org) administer acted regarded WIKI as their private belongings! They bans all the accounts if an user wrote critical thread to them. PLEASE BAN THEM ALL AND GIVE BACK ALL THE KOREANS THE WIKIPEDIA!!! Ko.wikipedia.org (Wikipedia in Korean) is very crucially damaged due to korean administer. It is considered that Korea Goverment employed them and enforced to delete every thread that has somewhat opposite point of view with korea goverment regardless of contents of thread. I wrote a thread, that the goverment might want to delete. and my account was just banned. Korean Administer didn't explain anything that is related to my ban. They just banned. they banned my account for 1 months just my thread is against to goverment although my thread is just based on only FACTS. I see that the thread of "LEE MYUNG BAK" (president of REPUBLIC OF KOREA, my country) is modified. all things that is critics of him is delected. and just positive explanation is remained which is written by supporters of Lee Myung Bak (The president of Korea) Administer, please contact me. please reply my account. Korean goverment tried to control internet, and they acted a "media law" that intended to censor all the contents in internet. I'm sure that in several months, all the threads that goverment doesn't like will be delected by Korean administer employed by goverment. please help me. In korea, television media has been already controlled by goverment. please. please. Korea is a democratic country. I want my country Korea to remain democratic... please. If Wiki will be controlled depending on goverment's view point, all the internet world in korea will be censored by dictator Lee Myung Bak... Internet world of korea will resemble just that of CHINA OR IRAN OR NORTH KOREA... I'm sure that Wiki want all the internet world to be free. Plu98 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Tune article up for deletion

I recently saw your request for deletion for the "Maximum Tune" article. I agree to the extent that it does not meet standards; however, I have written on the article's talk page that I oppose to the request. I hope more users will take notice of it, and hopefully come together and cleanup the article. Anime4international (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you take a look at the Proposed deletion guidelines you can see that if you feel the article should not be deleted this way (without a formal discussion) then you can simply remove the PROD notice yourself. If you make no move to remove the PROD it will be assumed that there is no reasonable objection to deletion. The Articles for deletion process is quite different as it involves a discussion with many editors and for that reason those templates should not be removed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. Thanks for the clarification. I've just started taking interest in editing articles, and still taking a look at the policies on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the help. Anime4international (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shared stioupid adress

Hello,
This is copy of the post I just left on u:Roleplayer talkpage. Thanks to you, as well and Apologize again.
Following to your posts Fæ (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) and ^player 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This url seems in fact to be a shared adress, as I (u:Kikuyu3) didnot connect on said date. Moreover, when I pay humor on this site, I avoid such subjects, as I am not fluent enough in english.
Anyhow, I apologize in the name of the stioupid colleague whom I don't know the identity, hoooopefully for his stioupid face ! Best regards to all the contributors. Hop ! 85.158.138.21 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (=Kikuyu3) This just to confirm. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(The above message appears to relate to the addition of {{SharedIPCORP}} to the IP user talk page. Obviously it is possible that multiple users might have connected at similar times, the notice there advises them to register for the benefits of editing from a named account as Kikuyu3 already has.) Fæ (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit blocking

Hello. PM800 gave me a final warning even if I didn't edit anymore the Dookie page. Why am I the one who is being blocked? Wikipedia isn't quite fair!--Revilal90 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Deprodding of Condover Primary School

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Condover Primary School, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!VERTott 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. I appreciate the Search engine test rationale but apart from appearing in school listings I'm not spotting anything to address the GNG requirement. As you suggest I'll consider for deletion discussion though I expect the end result would be the merge you mentioned on the article talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Vertott's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI :) Kudpung (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicely expressed, thanks. WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NHS and WP:UNIGUIDE is hard to explain and darn hard to get to grips with for any contributor. Fæ (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my page Vrenator (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinpoche

Hi. I was just looking over all this and catching up and was about to say to you that I didn't think Rinpoche was remotely interested in dispute resolution when I saw he had, quite rightly in my view, been indef blocked. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just writing a thank you note to Fram for taking action. I am wondering if I should now raise a MfD on the user page as a breach of USERPAGE? Fæ (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD on User:Rinpoche raised after re-reading, seems like the most sensible thing to do as blanking it myself would not be appropriate. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the most offensive stuff was removed already but it's still an attack page really.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

B&Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Collapse discussion from blocked user.

Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page B&Q have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. wow in less than 3 mins you have spoken to Sussex police and read the crime report on Mr James Priestman and his brother Neil, exactly what part of my edit is misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin slauter (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Your edit (diff) added an allegation of racism against the company without any reliable sources. If you re-add the claim with appropriate sources to, say, newspaper reports and the involvement of Sussex police, then your addition would be welcome. Please refer to WP:Verifiability. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I thought wiki was about facts not company propaganda, obviously your censorship of the truth behind B&Q Kingfisher is going to make my exposure of their racist and other illegal activities harder, but I always liked a challenge. Also miss Fae if your employer B&Q doesn't like the truth about their company being exposed they could Sue me, that way when lose people like you would be out of a job. Thank you for taking the time to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin slauter (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You may find WP:Truth and WP:NOTCENSORED helpful. If you meant to call me "loose" in the sense of "a loose woman", please refer to WP:No personal attacks. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

confused

i'm the source of information i want to post - first hand witness....why are you not allowing updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.136.211 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the verifiability policy. We do not doubt your testimony but facts in article about a living person must be verifiable and from a reliable source. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of ships

Re this edit, it is a long held convention at WP:SHIPS that ships are inherently notable and thus can sustain a stand-alone article. Very few ship articles get deleted, see WP:SHIPS/AFD. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The outcomes list of AFDs is helpful and pretty convincing. I note however that there does not appear to be a firm consensus (i.e. a specific notability guideline), though I agree that any sizeable ship is almost certain to be notable. My concern in this case was that a ship described as a "ferry" might not be obviously notable (I'm thinking of all those small ferries shuttling about in minor locations, such as across freshwater lakes). In this particular case I'm happy to say the article was improved to the extent that notability is pretty much a non-issue. Should I come across a doubtful ship-related article again I'll try to remember to use your handy link and raise the matter for discussion and possible article improvement on the project talk page. Thanks for the feedback, Fæ (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, ocean-going vessels will be notable. Yachts, boats, etc are assessed on a case-by-case basis - Maud (wherry) and its associated AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll take your summary as a rule of thumb and would be happy to question particular articles for which there would be any doubt on the project page (or at least the article talk page) first. I would have expected ocean-going vessels to appear on an international register, this along with being a certain registered "class" would give a threshold where notability was indisputable. As I have no expertise in this area I'll not be pursuing the concept. By the way, I would have no problem if you want to chip in with suggestions when I apply templates or notices that you feel might be misjudged in the future. I am always prepared to admit I was mistaken and withdraw such a process if there is any doubt. Fæ (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about ships being registered. Re your suggestion, I'm not going to stalk your edits - I'm sure there's no need for that. We all make mistakes occasionally (My latest!). If I happen to spot something then I will let you know, but that's as far as it goes. Best, Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Eric Durchholz

Hi Fæ - I looked over the article and it's history... and I checked to see if there are any new sources, but didn't find anything else that I thought should be included. In general, I'd like to see inline citations in all paragraphs of all articles; there are no inline citations in this article's para 3 or 4. Not good. Four of his books show up at amazon so he appears to be a legit published author. I agree that the refs are an issue in so far as WP:AUTHOR is concerned. I think the notability maintenance tag might be a way to go, plus addressing issues on the Talk page (Just noticed that I was mentioned by name on the Talk page; don't know that I deserve such praise!) I'm not sure how this article would fare at AfD. The article creator, Michaelh has been around for awhile and seems to be levelheaded; he has sought me out on a few occasions regarding assistance on various articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, I'll add a notability tag and an accompanying note on the talk page for any watchers. I'll reconsider for a wider deletion discussion depending on how that goes first. Thanks for your thoughts, Fæ (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Blocked

Why am I edit blocked? I didn't edit the Dookie page anymore! Wikipedia is unfai. PM800 didn't post any source for alternative rock and now I'm blocked because I just deleted things that are uncorrect. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revilal90 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for 24 hours, which does not seem too unbearable (as it already expired). I suggest you follow the advice already given on your talk page. As the reason for being blocked seems primarily to relate to edit-warring on the same article, I strongly recommend you avoid editing Dookie directly for at least a few weeks and instead put forward your rationale for changes on the talk page. Note that as it is a featured article, many editors will be keeping an eye on it and take a very literal stance on verifiability requirements. Note that should you create the same issues again, you are likely to be blocked for a much longer period, possibly indefinitely. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

hi

I see you're another street walker who needs to get off her fat ass and go earn her keep