User talk:Fences and windows

Wikipedia ads	file info – #198

Jack Lord#Filmography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK and the sorting works, and the previous table was a mess. Why are you asking me, and why are you monitoring Wildhartlivie's editing? And re: their comments about you being a sock: "I told you so." Stop going on about it and "ArbCom commending you". Fences&Windows 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that she's continuing to call her preferred approach the "standard". She's advocating the removal of the sorting, and it was Maile66 and Wildhartlivie who brought up my history, not I. I noticed this because the Jack Lord article perked-up on my watchlist. And I pinged you because you're reasonably familiar with this.

I'm about to go out; will check-back laters. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You brought up your history with your "This user is a sockpuppet" notice. Everyone who looks at your userpage sees it. Wasn't there supposed to be an RfC on this? Fences&Windows 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the sock aspects of my user page back some months ago. I do see at as a part of my history and about transparency. There is a stub of a colour RfC at User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC and I need to get focused on that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Jack shows up at many articles where he has never edited before, just as he did the Jack Lord one for the first time, less than an hour after I posted my reassessment comments at the article talk page. This goes on constantly and it's a real issue. His conduct regarding me tremendously inhibits my enjoyment of the site and is factually wikistalking. That Jack wants to change the standard to his preferred version does not take away from the fact that the use of that template had consensus at the first RfC on WT:ACTOR and he tends to fill his time with appearing at various articles soon after I edit there to "police" me or simply to announce that his eyes are on me. Whether he has 5000, 8000 or 100,000 articles on his watchlist where he has never previously edited, he invariably shows up at articles within a short time of my editing them. This needs to stop, really. Please. He's also well aware that this conduct is incredibly stressful to me and that my health is effected by it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack Merridew, a neutral message: "This user previously edited as Davenbelle ([click for details])" would do, no? Oh, the RfC is only on colour, and nowt else? Would be good to get sortability and rowspan resolved too. Wildhartlivie: your concern about Jack Merridew apparently following you is noted and I am inclined to agree that he needs to stop interacting with you (and probably vice versa). I'll read all this again, and see if I have any intelligent comments to make. Fences&Windows 18:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

briefly, I see her as attempting to run me off from 'her' articles because she does not want anyone with differing views editing her articles; see my interactions with Rossrs, who's adopted a lot of what I'm advocating. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. If Jack would stop following, demeaning me and picking issues like this one today, I'd have nothing to say, either to or about him. Also note who magically appeared here to post yet another disparaging comment above this. He always shows up and posts something disparaging about me, wherever he can and he tends to show up when Jack is involved. At one point he said he was waiting for me to burn out and get permanently banned. I'd be glad to put together diffs on him too. He's another not as frequent harasser, who makes it a habit of going around post comments like this. And Jack, please don't drag Rossrs into this, you have no clue. My health is only an issue when I am wikistalked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, please stay out of this and stop baiting Wildhartlivie. Do you have nothing better to do? I've removed your comment. Please only post on my talk page if you have something factual to say to me, rather than giving your unhelpful opinions. Jack Merridew, if this issue of table markup and standardisation is as important as you claim then others will surely pick up the baton, and you should be able to reach a consensus. There's no need for you to follow Wildhartlivie around. Besides, I don't really see anyone besides you who considers this matter to be urgent or important. Rossrs seems happy with blue headers and non-sortable tables. Wildhartlivie, your responses to every slight, real or perceived, often don't help matters. Fences&Windows 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I know they probably don't, but it makes me crazy when it happens. That is exactly what I think is intended. Thanks alot for taking me seriously. You don't know how much I appreciate it. I imagine it's much like sending the kids to separate corners. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A fair number of folks who commented in the ACTOR:RFC understand these issues and support what I've been saying. And there's the whole mess from last year that I was not involved in where this all went against WHL's positions and she just discarded all outside input and proceeded to make more of a mess. The people who see these issues with markup and colour tend to be people with a technical background because the core concern is a technical one; this is an inappropriate way to build web pages. That's not just my say-so; it's the consensus of most professional developers on teh interwebs, including the devs at WMF. Rossrs's edit includes a lot of code tweaks that are suggestions of mine. See our current dialogue on my talk page. As best I can tell, Rossrs is a friend of WHL's who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too. As to urgency and importance, I've been patient; this began in February (for me) and in May '08 for her, and it is important because we need to stop digging the hole in the wrong place so we can get on-track. Jack Merridew 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And a fair number of folks, who apparently without a "seriouz-clue" according to you, are the reason why there was not consensus on many of these things. Just as many other people are opposed to what Jack is touting. And Jack, I asked you nicely to leave Rossrs out of this, you have no clue of what he thinks and thus bringing him up multiple times is yet another way of digging at me and despite your contention, he is doing nothing he has not done many times in the past, only now he is inserting the filmography table heading. As Fences & Windows pointed out, Rossrs seems happy with blue headings and non-sortable tables. You have no clue of what he thinks. The hole that needs to stop being dug is the Jack Merridew stalking around after me. That's the issue here and once again, you've tried to divert the discussion away from the basic issue. Please leave me alone, stop following me around and doing what amounts to harassment. I'm asking you nicely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the thrust of this. Wildhartlivie might be doing some owning of this content matter, but that is not going to be resolved by following them around, reverting them, and commenting about them to everyone who interacts with them on filmography formatting. What you need to do is to keep discussing this issue in centralised places, preferably a well-advertised RfC, and to stop interacting with Wildhartlivie outside of these centralised discussions. It's ridiculous that this keeps flaring up in skirmishes on talk pages, it reminds me of the lame nationalist edit wars over Danzig/Gdansk, British Isles/Britain and Ireland, or Derry/Londonderry. I think you have the best of intentions - to standardise Wikipedia's formatting to help readers and editors - but your approach is problematic and you're not seeing this. By focussing only your perception that Wildhartlivie is breaching consensus, you're not seeing how your attempts to resolve this are turning a simple content/format issue into a full-scale behavioural dispute, especially as you have an tendency to make disparaging comments about people you disagree with. You have objected to others who agree with Wildhartlivie as being 'meatpuppets' (which is unfair, Wikipedians agreeing with each other are not 'meatpuppets'), but you never object when Chowbok snipes from the sidelines. You're making this a "them vs us" issue. Your comments about Rossrs have the ring of trying to 'recruit' someone who has previously edited with Wildhartlivie to 'your side'. If you don't voluntarily refrain from commenting on article talk pages and to individual editors about Wildhartlivie's editing of filmographies (including when this appears on your watchlist, as we cannot check that), I'll seek a formal interaction ban. Fences&Windows 12:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly surprised that my name pops up throughout this discussion, and if not for that, I probably wouldn't feel the need to comment. I assume good faith that Jack's comments are not intended to "recruit" me. I would hope that we can have civilised discussions in the future as I would like to be able to work with anyone. I generally agree with the comments made about me. Jack, you're right in saying that I support some of things you advocate. Some of them are uncontroversial, and some of them, specifically the markup and font size in the tables, were discussed at length at WP:ACTOR. I had my say on that page and although not everything went the way I would have liked, my attitude is to support the recommendations of such discussions, even if it's against my preferred option. My editing history over about 5 years will bear this out - every time some change is made to the way certain articles are presented, I try to take it on board and go through editing numerous articles to bring them in line, and before I get anywhere near finished, the prevailing attitudes change again and I go back over the same articles. So in that regard Wildhartlivie is correct. It's my standard approach, but it's true to say that I do agree with a good deal of what you say. In a nutshell, yes I am happy with the blue headers and the non-sortable tables as Fences&Windows observed, though I have not actually discussed my like or dislike for the sortable format. I haven't added any, nor removed any. If the header colour is discussed I'll support the blue over the bog-standard. If consensus is to switch to the bog standard, I'll be disappointed, but I'll also be there helping to change them over. As I've mentioned before to you, I don't always appreciate the manner in which you present your views, but I don't take that to heart, and I don't let it stop me from contributing. I have felt that I'm part of the group of editors you've dismissed with "meatpuppet" comments and when you first started commenting at the actor discussion, I wasn't much interested in your opinion because it was peppered with that type of negative, dismissive comment. However, I stuck with it long enough to try to see your point and in some areas I came to understand and agree with you.

You're also right in saying that I am a friend of Wildhartlivie. I like her, value her and respect her. I don't necessarily agree with her all the time, but for the most part I can see her point of view. I've also edited with her long enough and frequently enough to know that she is someone who doesn't accept change for change's sake and is fairly firm in her opinions. Some see that solely as an ownership issue, but I do not think it's as straight-forward as that, simply because I've also seen enough situations where she has changed her opinion after discussion. I'm glad that you describe me as someone "who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too." I honestly try to see all points. There are still things that need to be discussed regarding filmographies and other aspects of the articles we seem to all edit. It's probably too much to hope for, but maybe if it could be discussed along the lines of "just the facts", without any nuances that may cause a reaction, it may actually be possible to make some progress. I think everyone needs to understand and respect that if Wildhartlivie says she feels stalked, we have to accept that she is expressing a genuine concern, and that the correct approach is to keep a courteous distance. Jack, you seem to appear at a lot of articles that Wildhartlivie has recently visited, and considering how many articles fall under just the broad "actor" heading, it should be possible to keep the contact to a minimum. If everyone agrees to keep future conversations neutral and focussed on the discussion rather than the participants, is it possible we can move forward and make some progress? I have to say this - "Chowbok snipes from the sidelines" is an absolutely perfect way to describe his behaviour. It's been going on for too long, and I long ago stopped caring about how justified he feels he is. If Wildhartlivie bothers him so much, he needs to avert his gaze. Not exactly rocket science. Rossrs (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Fences and windows and Rossrs. The issues are the content and not Wildhartlivie, and we can't resolve the color/tables/sorting bit until that's been made clear. It's wasting everyone's volunteer time here. If this issue can't be solved here, then a ban on the interaction seems in order.Malke2010 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been largely not commenting to WHL for some time as it's clear that things run in circles and that it exacerbates the situation. In the case of the Jack Lord table, I saw the page pop up on my watchlist; I'd not edited it before but assume is was one of the thousand articles I watched by pasting WP:ACTOR/PP; that's a bot-updated page and Jack Lord doesn't appear on it at the moment; it doesn't appear on WT:ACTOR or User:Wildhartlivie, either, and she'd not edited it in three months before I did. I watch a lot of pages. I see that she removed "bgcolour = silver" from the infobox; an appropriate removal. I saw a huge heap of bad markup in the article and cleaned it up; this is good and I've been doing such clean-up for years on wiki; for decades in the real world. I didn't make any comment to her or about her regarding this until she brought me up on the talk page of the editor who had been heavily editing the article recently. I've focused on the RfC proposal on MRG's page and that's where I see this getting sorted. She raised the possibility of mediation or an RFC/U, and that may yet be appropriate. I see that there's some history between Chowbok and WHL. She's got squabbles with a ton of editors.

WHL reverts; a lot. She's reverted an awful of my efforts at cleaning these articles up. She also attacks me quite regularly, and is generally a belligerent editor. Jimbo just commented on her, characterizing her comments as 'insulting'. It's clear that she simply wants me out of 'her articles'. This is the root of the 'following-around' complaint. She's aware of my history and can not have missed the whole issue regarding User:A Nobody who made pretty much the same complaint. This is a tactic to change the subject from my efforts to take the filmography formatting in a directing she doesn't want it to go.

I hardly tried to recruit Rossrs; he came to my talk page and started a productive thread; User talk:Jack Merridew#Filmography table. I will engage in dialogue with most anyone, regardless of whether I agree with them, as long as it's civil and productive. I think the best solution to the poor interaction dynamic is for Rossrs to serve as an informal mediator. I expect he's acceptable to WHL, and he seems a reasonable bloke to me. Rossrs, ya up for it? Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, first of all, do not misrepresent the chronology on the Jack Lord article. I hadn't edited the article, but you arrived at the article here at 02:40, 24 June 2010 my time, 48 minutes after I had posted my assessment here, at 01:52, 24 June 2010 my time. It's disengenuous to claim that I hadn't edited there in 3 months since talk page edits show up on watchlists also. That you took off to grumble and inappropriately canvass back-up has been demonstrated. And if you had done your stalking properly, you'd note that the editor who requested the assessment first referenced your appearance by posting on my talk page here, saying "Laugh or not, but before I got to your assessment, some other user jumped in and edited the filmography table, mostly by taking out the reduced font size. Not all that helpful, but it took a lot of work to do that. And I'm hoping that same user leaves the new template alone as it has reduced font size. So, following to that user's talk page, it says "This user is a Sock Puppet". Aren't sock puppets not supposed to be used? Did I read wrong somewhere about sock puppets?" as you already know and have indicated that when you posted your canvassing posts. I recognized the description (who wouldn't who is familiar with you?) and guessed it was you when I posted my reply to that editor. Once again, that's a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Your bragging about being a sock puppet on your userpage is what brought you up, I didn't initiate anything, which Fences and Windows noted above. Also note that you wikistalked me to that user's talk page, when I posted to her here at 12:15, 24 June 2010, and you showed up, just like the cavalry, to post your own take on the matter in the next edit to the page, at 13:49, 24 June 2010. And you were swiftly followed by, who? - Chowbok, who posted his repetitive notice of my block history here. It's his misediting to arbitrarily switch the citation style at Ed Gein where his crap started. I am guessing he didn't like that he was required by guidelines to first propose a wholesale change to citation styling before initiating it, but that's where his bullcrap started. Does that description ring any bells?

You are well aware of the history regarding Chowbok and his aligning himself with SkagitRiverQueen and how he started wikistalking me too, just like you, but posting clear and deliberate personal attacks on multiple pages. Your characterization of me as "She's got squabbles with a ton of editors." is an attempt to change the subject. That has nothing to do with your wikistalking me and I asked you nicely, more than once, to leave me alone. Jimbo made a non-specific comment based on something I said, and that was not a personal attack or disparaging in any way. It's well known, amongst many editors involved on the page being discussed for deletion, including the ones with a "seriouz-clue" that Jimbo wants that page deleted and myriad other things regarding that article. It's not related to you at all, except once again, you showed up to post opposition to a statement I made. What? No one is allowed to question Jimbo Wales' intent? You are not privy to the contents of the two e-mails he sent to me that regarded all of this. They reflect intent. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about when you say that the Jack Lord article doesn't appear on WT:ACTOR or User:Wildhartlivie either, but if you'd bother to note, I was specifically asked to review the article for suggestions and possible reassessment on User talk:Wildhartlivie here. Why is it that I am asked to do something and you become a part of it automatically? I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you have some wonder tool to know what articles are on my watchlist or is that simply a deflection comment? This discussion about your wikistalking is not a deflection attempt. I am truly sick and tired and fed up with your magically appearing on article after article after article just after I've edited. And I'm sick beyond words at the many attempts to bait and argue and canvass support against me. Again, I'll say it: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND. It can be substantiated. I am not up to date on your myriad issues with other editors, but I still note that when you returned, you were required to have a mentor because you wikistalked other editors and harassed them and I don't believe that was User:A Nobody. This is no different. And by the way, what you have done with this entire issue puts lie to your contention that you have not said things about me or done things to me. Many editors have seen your conduct about me and said so at AN/I. You've also dropped the intimidation effort of referencing to mediation or RfC/U more times than I can stomach. Chowbok pressed you to do it, if I recall. The only thing I am presently amenable to is you stopping the wikistalking and leave me alone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the views on this issue have been aired enough here. Everyone, keep discussing this at centralised venues, not on disparate article and user talk pages. Jack Merridew, please avoid following Wildhartlivie to articles or talk pages. Chowbok, please don't keep making unhelpful comments about Wildhartlivie. Wildhartlivie, please keep your posts brief and tone down the emotional level. Thanks. Fences&Windows 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facepalm?

You might want to change need to needed? O Fenian (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Um. Yeah. Ironic, eh? Fences&Windows 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly an inopportune moment to do that yes. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you come back to the Johann Hari discussion if you have a moment?

Your contributions have been really balanced and helpful in the past. An editor is inserting material that seems to be breaching BLP rules pretty clearly to me, but she thinks I have misunderstood. A third party would be really helpful.David r from meth productions (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you may not like it. Also, please always log in when editing or commenting. Fences&Windows 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pagemonster18

Hello, if you remember me, I reported Pagemonster18 to the Administrators' noticeboard Incident on June 18, 2010 for the continuation of adding unsourced materials. You commented that an indefinite block would follow if Pagemonster18 did it again. Today the editor made a contribution to an unreleased film. The unsourced contribution was reverted by an editor. I believe the Pagemonster18 edits in good faith but causes disruptive edits. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for following up on this. They are just not listening. Fences&Windows 15:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and again. Might want to watchlist it, so I don't have to light your page up. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Virtual novel

Greeting fellow Wiki editor and you have an interesting User page. I have removed the Delete notice from the Virtual Novel article. I know I am biased as I created the page and, yes, I am aware that there are not many references to be found (although there are a couple) but a Virtual Novel is just a novel published on the WWW not on paper and given that there are many aspiring novelists that cannot find publishers there are bound to be more virtual novels in the future. I am bit weary recently as I recently had another article I had created deleted, but do you really think that the presence of this article makes Wikipedia a worse place? Do you not think that some readers out there might not be interested in the subject? Maybe we could have wider debate with the opinions of more editors? I will probably lose the debate - I usually do :-) - but I feel duty-bound to at least try and save this article as I am fond of it and think it has value. Thanks  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I diligently looked for sources as I always do when assessing an unsourced article, and I found nothing in reliable sources that could support the contents of the article. I found various other definitions for "Virtual novel", but they would belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. You may be a bit weary, but perhaps you will learn to use sources in future, and not to make up topics from the top of your head? I shall proceed to AfD. You may be interested in Online book and Web fiction, two articles that are not under threat of deletion for being unverifiable. Fences&Windows 13:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I try and be nice and friendly to you and you come back all pompous, formal and superior to me. Why would you do that? The article has been there the best part of a year and no other editor but you has objected to it's presence but go ahead and delete it if you feel like you're making Wikipedia a better place. 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You should know that unverifiable material has no place in Wikipedia and not try to paint me or others who argue for the deletion of such articles as doing anything wrong. I do hope you'll start using sources when writing articles; if that makes me pompous and superior, then so be it. Your plea that it might be interesting to someone doesn't hold water if we can't verify it, and the length of time an article has been in existence has no bearing on whether it meets inclusion criteria. It's a long, slow task to clean up unsourced material. Such articles do make Wikipedia a worse place as they leave abandoned, fragmented, and misleading material scattered across many pages, making a reader's experience confusing and unrewarding. We're writing an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not our personal scratchpad. Fences&Windows 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "cite video" template info

Care to discuss why you deleted the information about using the {{cite video}} template from the WP:Video links policy draft page? There's a discussion section on that on the talk page for your convenience. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contemporary media reporting on the Holocaust

Ping me again when the dust clears. I'd like to see just how big of a project writing this article would be. But if I can't directly contribute, I'll try to help by mediating the inevitable content disputes. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

While I know he doesn't say it specifically, I can't help, based on his recent comments and snarky digs at me, but think that this is a non-named personal attack. The main theme lately has been that I "complain" about my health too much and if I recall, it was characterized as a manipulation on this very page. I know it doesn't say my name, but at least, I predict that page link will start popping up about me from him. How does he get made to stop? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why were you reading Chowbok's userpage? Don't take the bait. Why do you care what Chowbok thinks? However, if he does persist in commenting on you as he as been, Wikipedia:Harassment outlines what to do.

If you want to avoid being bullied, please avoid mentioning personal matters such as your health on Wikipedia, as this will only be used against you. If I were you I would remove the notice about your health and about retiring from crime articles. Just focus on content. Try to avoid conflict, try to resolve disputes early, and don't react emotionally, as that is exactly what bullies thrive on. As Rossrs said on your talk page, we all need to think about effective communication, both with those involved in disputes with us and with editors who might mediate the dispute - ways to do this are to avoid escalating the dispute ourselves, and to keep comments brief and focussed. Fences&Windows 10:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, she's left. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision of WP:BLPNAME

The issue of whether WP:BLPNAME should be revised has come up again. As you participated in a previous discussion on this guideline, you are invited to contribute your views at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Concrete proposals". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can you stop the attacks and stalking going on by Chowbok? I tried discussing with him things on my talk page but it didn't seem to work. Now he is attacking a group of us at this article calling us a cabal. He is also at it at Doc9871. I have to be honest that has gotten tiring already. It would be really nice if you could help with this and make it stop already. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

I realize that I'm not being the most civil, but I think you're being unfair. My point at Claudette Colbert is that when somebody removed a sourced statement that WHL put in, she indicated that the person removing it had the burden of proving it was an unreliable source; however, when she removed somebody else's sourced statement, it suddenly becomes the editor who wants it retain who has to prove reliability. If you don't want me to call them meat puppets, fine (although it wasn't that long ago that WHL got blocked for having sock puppets, one of which agreed with her in editing disputes all the time, and the other one left insulting homophobic comments on another editor's talk page—apparently everybody's supposed to forget that ever happened), but the pattern is clear; WHL, Crohnie, Rossrs, Doc9871, and Pinkadelica all agree on how they want an article through off-wiki consultation, and any edits that are made that they don't approve are instantly reverted as "against consensus". If anyone crosses them, they complain to noticeboards or admins known to be sympathetic immediately. This is a serious problem. I will work on being more civil, as I should, but I would like at least the slightest acknowledgment that I'm not the sole problem here.—Chowbok ☠ 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was blunt this time as I asked nicely earlier in the month and that didn't seem to be effective. By all means I see issues with Wildhartlivie's approach to editing, but that doesn't excuse hounding her. If there's a problem with someone's editing you won't sort it out by following them around, baiting them, and calling people who edit together meatpuppets. I don't see why they'd need to coordinate off-wiki as watchlists and contributions are perfectly adequate to collaborate with someone, but talking off-wiki isn't disallowed. Ways to resolve disputes are to calmly discuss edits, get third opinions, seek advice on noticeboards and WikiProjects, open an RfC (if it really comes to it, an RfC/U), not jumping in, reverting, and accusing people of misconduct. This kind of approach is only going to get their hackles up, make editors circle the wagons against you, and make you look unreasonable. Your aim surely is to persuade people that your argument is correct, but you're not succeeding in this. There are greater problems than this on Wikipedia, and many other articles in need of fixing. However, I've dropped in some sources to the talk page to try to help that debate to progress beyond a "Hollywood Babylon is reliable"; "Isn't!"; "Is!" slanging match. If one source is disputed (not all sources should be used, particularly on biographies), the way to resolve the dispute is usually to find other sources. Fences&Windows 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough. You're right that I'm not going about this the right way. I'm letting my anger at her drive me to distraction, and that's not helpful. I'll try to quit being so snarky and baiting. At the same time, I do think it's important to keep an eye on her edits, because IMO she is a problem editor. I will try to follow your advice about how to handle it. Would you mind being one of those "third opinions" in the future?—Chowbok ☠ 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do seem to be in that position! Fences&Windows 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to drag you into this further if you don't want to be. There are others I can talk to.—Chowbok ☠ 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why would you ask him in the first place? Chowbok, you're saying that you are going to continue to "keep an eye" on her, and that "third opinions" will be needed in the future as a result or your "watching"? That doesn't sound good at all: how about not "keeping an eye on her" and moving away from her instead? You've been asked to do this many times since January, and yet it continues... Doc9871 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Chowbok, that was a bit flippant of me. I've become involved in dispute resolution here; it'd be poor of me to wash my hands of the situation. Doc9871, calm down! I can't ban someone from being concerned about Wildhartlivie's approach to editing, can I? If you want to seek a formal interaction ban, WP:AN would be the place for that. If you do decide to do this, stay calm and to the point, provide clear evidence, and be aware that the WP:BOOMERANG effect could come into play. Fences&Windows 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll opine here. First off, Ken Anger's book is a poor source. I'm not going there. And rather than speak of WP:MEATPUPPETs, have a read of WP:TAGTEAM. Chowbok, please mellow some, and be patient. The key thing here is to be reasonable and to listen to input. Those who don't listen well end up in trouble. And Doc really does need to beware the boomerang. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) not specifically intending to tar ya, Rossrs ;) Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a case of tag teaming and I don't feel tarred. I tried to explain my position and quoted from guidelines. Chowbok could have said "no I disagree because... " and quoted from other guidelines. I may have been wrong and was prepared for him to tackle me on my comments rather than who I am. He commented about a "cabal' and didn't address the issue at hand, which was poor sourcing. I was only objecting to the source, not the material. I said that I didn't know or care who Claudette had sex with but that I was sure Hollywood Babylon was not considered a reliable source. Here's a question - if you look at the stats for edits to Claudette Colbert, I've been editing that article off and on since 2004. I'm the second highest contributor there. I'm not a drive-by editor and it is on my watchlist. Chowbok's Hollywood Babylon edit summary stuck out on my watchlist because to me it's about the worst source we could use. So.... if it's wrong for an editor in theory to support WHL just because she's WHL, is it not equally wrong for an editor to dispute WHL just because she's WHL? I only ask because Chowbok suddenly appeared to revert an edit she made, and I don't see anything to suggest his interest in the article. There are two sides to the story and it's too easy for him to cry "cabal" when he sees something he doesn't like and it's particularly inappropriate when I tried to make a reasonable case on the talk page based on our guidelines, and supported by sourced content in another article. Rossrs (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've not read that whole talk page; not even looked, today; I looked half a day ago. I'm talking about long-term patterns of the same group reverting together on a lot of articles, and I've never seen you doing that. Sometimes this is fine; genuine vandalism or BLP issues (or bios of dead people;). But there's more than that, and it boils down to ownership, edit waring, consensus blocking (and all those naughty soks). fyi, I never had two accounts in the same discussion; ever. I tried to start over and was evading some AC restrictions. The word cabal would seem poorly chosen (by Chowbok); that's something else entirely. I've not looked, but certainly believe you that you've done a lot for that article; and I'm not even sure if I've ever edited it, although I may have tidied some things up. You've been here a long time and I respect that; Chowbok's been here a damn long time, too, and I respect that. Contribs are public for a reason; to allow others to check-up when they've concerns. At this point, few will really dispute that there are concerns about WHL's patterns of editing. I've globally opted-in to X!'s Edit Counter with the intent of transparency. This tool used to work for all without opt-in being required. You could, too. I believe that all editors of good faith should. I also see that your account is not unified; go to prefs and it's easy (unless those others are not you). I see no conflicts. Also, see a request I'm going to make to F&W, next.

WHL sorta agreed on MRG's talk; where ya want to take this? How about emailing me?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, some of these points are off topic, so we should take them to either of our talk pages. Comments appreciated though. I see Chowbok's choice of the word "cabal" to be more than "poorly chosen". I see it as an accusation and it's the sort of thing that should be done carefully. I explained my actions, gave supporting evidence and made no personal comment about Chowbok, and then his response was to dismiss everything because I'm part of a cabal. Unacceptable. I'll contact you later about the other points. thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've looked further. Perhaps that Mann book F&W pointed at and you seem to be considering. The cabal comment gets at a wider concern and I can see how you feel stung, given your history on that page. It all should be discussed outside of the context of any specific article. That's what F&W is telling me; Chowbok, too, who should listen. I expect this affair-or-not question has come up before. Mostly I'm neutral regarding all this fascination with just what celebrities are familiar with each others bits. It's all about prurient interest. This is not the right page, either, as it lights up our host's orange-bar-of-annoyance. Talk to ya wherever. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, fancy seeing you here commenting on this one, Jack! I'm pretty good at avoiding a boomerang - thanks for the friendly advice. You can reply to my talk page if you want to - I'm sure your "ears are burning".. Doc9871 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would I care what you say? You're just trolling. And stay off my talk page. Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(after many EC) ::::For the record then I will repeat what I told Chowbok. I am trying to help WHL with not sounding so harsh. Others are too I believe. She doesn't mean to sound harsh but if you take a look she is trying real hard to soften her approach. I would like to also put on the record that the sock puppet case was cleared up. WHL had a one week block. During that time she and the other editor, who is her friend for years, sent ID to CU's to show that they are two different people. The socking was done by WHL friend and she admitted it and is now indefinitely blocked. There should be no more comments about the socking incidence. The time was served and proof submitted and she was allowed to return to edit. I think she is an excellent editor that just needs to soften her responses. I don't know what Chowbok thinks is so bad about WHL. If there is something to help with please let me know so I can help out. In closing, I don't think that Chowbok should be watching or following WHL at all, all that will do is cause problems we've already seen. Question: Fences and windows, what problems are you talking about? Thanks, I'm going offline til tomorrow, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not cleared up. The blocks of the socks still stand and their categorization is correct points right at her. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (tweaked Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

WHL has said many times proof has been submitted, but I have yet to see any admin confirm that. And if the accusation is that LaVidaLoca is a sock, LaVidaLoca's denial is not terribly convincing, for obvious reasons.

I've agreed to work on being more civil and less snarky. Simply watching her edits in itself is entirely legitimate, and I will continue to do so. I also note that she's watching my edits like a hawk: she immediately assumed an edit I made to my home page was about her and complained above. And that's fine! Editing lists aren't private and she's welcome to watch mine. Complaining about me watching hers while watching mine, though, seems just a tad unfair, don't you think?—Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, you seem to blame WHL for the fact that no public acknowledgment has been given to discuss the acceptance of the evidence she submitted, and I also wonder why the admin involved hasn't said something to clear the air and explain why he accepted her evidence. That's not WHL's doing and it's not the first time you've raised that point. It's fair enough that you have concerns about that, but you need to speak to the admin involved instead of raising it as point against WHL. Whatever your complaints are about WHL this particular one is not being controlled by her. You should ask the admin and it's fair that the admin should offer some kind of reply. I'm sure you're not the only one asking this question, and it's a reasonable one to ask. Rossrs (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive#Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments 2 for what I believe to be the last on this; it's about User:Sara's Song; there is also User talk:LaVidaLoca#Indefinitely blocked, which I don't read as an endorsement of LVL's statement. FWIW, I don't believe WHL's socking at this point; if she ever does again, an indef will be swift. Jack Merridew 22:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe WHL is socking. My issue is with Chowbok raising the points about WHL still being allowed to edit and the evidence she submitted. She didn't lift her own block, and she didn't accept her own evidence. That part of Chowbok's beef lies 100% with the admin who made the call. If Chowbok has "yet to see any admin confirm" the evidence submitted by WHL, why not just ask the admin? Have you approached the admin in question, Chowbok? That should at least help address some of your concerns. Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Her week-long block wasn't 'lifted' it ran its course and expired. I think we're done here and you and I should have our own talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we're done here and I'll move along, but just so it's recorded here where I made the comment, you're right. Expired and lifted are not the same. Carelessly worded on my part. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Watch" away! Just try to be civil for civility's sake (most times you are not with WHL) the next time you interject at an article or thread you've "watched" her to... Doc9871 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable request, and I will try my best.—Chowbok ☠ 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Outdent. Wildhartlivie has some issues with ownership of articles, with getting into disputes, and with escalating conflicts beyond what is necessary. Fences&Windows 21:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  An old sockpuppet block is pretty irrelevant now, isn't it? Please stop this tit-for-tat and point scoring, before I indef block THE LOT OF YOU as my patience expires. Fences&Windows 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. Not really, but if felt good to type it.

  I've been ec'ing and am posting some clarifications anyway. The new RfC will launch this week and my focus is there. Jack Merridew 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wildhartlivie, This is to inform you that a public flagellation is occurring at User talk:Fences and windows that might concern an incident in which you were involved. Thanks for the heads-up folks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I see this conversation went off track while I was gone. Jack, there is no tag teaming either so cut it out already. I have some articles on my watchlist that is the same as WHL. I also have some medical ones that are the same as some other editors, so what? To Fences and windows, can you explain to me how you come to the conclusions you come to about WHL? Just saying she has problems with ownership, etc. doesn't help. Also, where do you get this from, Jack, Chowbok? They've been screaming this and other things about her from the rooftops for a long time. Did they scream it long enough for it to now become truth? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, it'd be worth reading Wikipedia:Tag team again. It's quite a good essay, with good advice on what to do when accused of tag teaming, including this: "A common problem on Wikipedia is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side"." My view of Wildhartlivie's editing is independent of Jackmerridew and Chowbok's accusations, feel free to disagree of course. She does get into more protracted disputes than would seem necessary, and has a tendency to not to drop the stick. See for example Talk:Frances Farmer, where she edit warred over the title of a talk section and took the other editor to AN/I, resulting in... nothing happening. I don't buy the explanation for the sockpuppetry, but you'd have to ask Lar to expand on his enigmatic statements to get anymore clarity on that - not that I care. None of this means I think she's a terrible editor or deserves to be followed around and harassed. Fences&Windows 11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read that, I actually watched it during it's developement. :) I agree that she needs to drop the stick more often and I do tell her to when I take notice to it. I'm glad that your opinion is free of outside influence, I thought it was but I guess I needed to hear it (read it). I know more about the socking stuff, for the record, as I was involved in a lot of the off site conversations about it but you're right it's a non-issue and should not be brought up anymore. I have to admit that I have great respect for WHL's editing abilities and go to her for help when I need it. She really does listen to advice so if you see something all you have to do is go to her and let her know your opinion. That being said, Jack and Chowbok have to drop their sticks and now. Thanks for your explanation, I really do appreciate it, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

need a mop ;)

Hi. I've opted-in to X!'s Edit Counter. For my Jack account, I did this on meta, as it's unified. I can't do this for my past accounts as they're blocked and it's done via .js files which need a mop-bit to edit. Could you please do the en:route for my main accounts? See: User:Davenbelle,^[1] User:Moby Dick,^[2] User:Diyarbakir.^[3] The others have few edits so it's of little value (do it if you want). None of the others are unified, so I think Meta inappropriate (and there are a few not-me User:Moby Dick's on far projects; ro:, as I recall). As I said to Rossrs, I see this as something that all good faith editors should do. Thanks, Jack Merridew 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. WikiChecker performs a similar function as X!'s tool, btw. Fences&Windows 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; seems to be fine. I know WikiChecker; I've extensive bookmarks of tools; a lot of toolsever has rolled-over as they're killing inactive accounts. fyi, see Jack Lord filmography; Maile66 discarded all my clean-up and the sorting and went per the really poor examples he was pointed at; It was mess and a half and at odds with everything; I've cleaned it again; comment re sortability? He didn't use blue, either ;) Jack Merridew 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh man. He forked the content to be able to include his own table formatting? Splitting the filmography table out hardly seems like something that helps readers. Discuss it at Talk:Jack Lord... Fences&Windows 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hand-ball; I'm off for now. ;) Jack Merridew 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See sandbox work. Jack Merridew 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::I thought you were neutral about things. It doesn't appear like you are though I'm sorry to say. Anyways, if you wouldn't mind would you please ask Jack to stop stirring things up. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please except my apologies. I was out of line with my comment. I am sorry I upset you with that comment. I have stricken it. That kind of behavior is beneath me so again please except my apologies for being so rude to you. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you trying to work out if I'm "with you or against you"? You'd better stop treating this as a battle with sides, Crohnie. I'm not on your "side", I'm not on Jackmerridew's "side". I didn't say what format I preferred, I was commenting that someone splitting a filmography out in a new article when it's already been disputed and when the split seemingly does nothing to serve the reader doesn't seem like a good idea. Right, that's it. I'm fed up of this juvenile squabbling and point scoring. I'm out. Sort out your dispute yourselves. Fences&Windows 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the split off of the filmography was something that was included in the original assessment run down: "If you still feel the tables are too long, they can be spun off onto a separate and related article." The concern was that it was too extensive and long. That was back on June 24, after I was asked to look the article over, and upon which she began to work the same day. The work done included flipping the chronology from most recent through oldest to the converse, which was kindly pointed out by User:Chickenmonkey. And for the record, Jack, the "really poor examples he was pointed at" was directly to the Filmography template section. Look again at where it was linked. But you know, thanks for making it into yet something else for which you can blame me. What happened to supporting spin offs? I don't especially support it unless it is overwhelming the page. It was the editor's opinion that it was. Perhaps it did, it reduced the page content from 26,715 bytes to 18,238 bytes, thus it covered nearly a third of the page. That she chose the wrong example on that page was an error, that's all. But after this discussion, she left Wikipedia rather than be subjected to this sort of uproar. So much for trying to work up a good article for her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I really wish you would reconsider abandoning this. I appreciate your neutrality and from reading through all of this, wish you would stay involved. Thanks for your efforts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm liable to lose my temper now, and that'd get us nowhere. Doc9871 has contributed to ramping up the the combativeness of this dispute just as much as Chowbok has, including on my talk page, and Crohnie's comment was a final straw. I'm not going to try to resolve this if I'm thought to be biased. I respect Moonriddengirl and expect that her guidance on the RfC should facilitate a resolution. Fences&Windows 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A final thought: one can only be baited if one takes the bait. If Chowbok or Jackmerridew makes a comment that an editor believes is a sly allusion to their editing, the best thing to do is to ignore them. They want a reaction. Fences&Windows 19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do or say to get you to change your mind? I really am sorry about my comment and would like for you to keep trying with this. I promise to behave myself. If you look at my history since being here you will see that what I did above is not normal behavior for me. Please don't give up, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing Requested Moves

I notice you've closed a few requested moves lately. Although not an admin I do hang around there quite a lot and was wondering whether you were aware of Template:RM top and Template:RM bottom which is what is normally used to close requested moves. It's also not necessary to surround the movereq tag with <nowiki> as you can simply remove it. The way the requested move templates are set up ensures that a permanent record should be kept in the form of the line with the arrow in it. If you've deliberately done it the way you have then that's fine but I thought I'd let you know as I think there's some advantages to uniformity. An example of a more conventional close is here. Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and decided not to bother with those templates, but I'll use them in future if it's expected (though the instructions don't say it is). Feel free to change those I've done if you like. Fences&Windows 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I say as long you're happy with it I am, it was just unusual to see them closed differently and wanted to make sure you're aware of them. Dpmuk (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

YoutTube/video fun

Not surprised. He tried using another inappropriate YouTube video on another article a month ago. Thanks for the clean up and advice. I'm actually happy with how the base is coming along so hopefully bringing it back for discussion down the road will get it topped off.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Lisztomania

Thanks for moving Lisztomania (movie) to Lisztomania. However, it seems the page Talk:Lisztomania (movie) did not get moved. This now leads to the curious situation that clicking on the "discussion" tab at Lisztomania will open Talk:Lisztomania (condition). Please move Talk:Lisztomania (movie) to Talk:Lisztomania. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Thanks for pointing this out. Fences&Windows 13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jesus Christ: The Musical

An editor has nominated Jesus Christ: The Musical, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ: The Musical and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Launched

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at TeleComNasSprVen's talk page.
Message added 00:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario)

Thanks for moving Beechwood Cemetery. However Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario) was left behind, I assume inadvertently. Can this be moved to match the article when you have a chance? Also, since Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) now no longer redirects to a dab page, should it be speedily deleted? Station1 (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ta, I thought I'd moved it too. Yes, I've deleted the now unused disambiguation page as housekeeping. Fences&Windows 12:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you implemented a Requested move differently than proposed and discussed. Could you please now restore the Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) page and its Talk page (which were located at Beechwood Cemetery until the Requested move was completed. Your deletion of those is not consistent with the discussion. If you disagree with the consensus of a discussion, you have the option to join in the discussion instead, but I think it is not proper for you to close the discussion in favor of a non-discussed alternative.

The impact of the disambiguation deletion/moves are showing up in the Daily Disambig today, is why i am noticing it immediately. This disambiguation was part of a structure of two disambiguation pages that sensibly covered the existing 2 wikipedia articles about places of each of two similar names, and allowed for more to be added as information comes forward about others being notable. It is not wrong to have a disambiguation page of 2 items. Again, if u want to argue it is wrong, please cancel your close of the Requested Move discussion and state your views there. --doncram (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Actually i think it might be best to form one combo dab page covering places named Beechwood Cemetery and Beechwoods Cemetery, covering 4 items at first. So I will redirect from one of the disambiguation page names to the other. But rather than creating a new page redirect, it would be more proper to have the page history and Talk page history in the record. Please do restore the Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) that was deleted as a first step. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

IAR. I implemented the discussed move, and then realised that there's no need for a disambiguation page. If more cemeteries by this name are thought to be notable, then there can be a disambiguation page, but with only two articles to disambiguate a hatnote suffices. If your only objection to what was done is based on bureaucracy, you're not going to convince me this was wrong. Of course, it doesn't take admin tools to recreate the disambiguation page, so if you're that insistent you can just go ahead and do it. Fences&Windows 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point i have already created a combo dab page at Beechwoods Cemetery to cover them both. I think i got all the entries on the deleted page. But rather than create a redirect at Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation) to this combo page as a brand new page, it would be preferred to have the old page there and its Talk page and their histories. So that the history will be clear in the future, and so that as other articles on places of this name get created it will be possible to resume a separate dab page if appropriate. It's now just a matter of restoring history in place.

About IAR, i don't know what to say. If you have to invoke IAR to justify actions that go counter to consensus in a Requested Move, well you should not be closing that Requested Move. Please just restore the article and redirect it to the combo dab page, or allow me to. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As you care so much. Fences&Windows 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Now i am confused. First another editor (Skeezix) recreated the dab page, noting that was the consensus, and in fact i see that was discussed in detail in the requested move, and I rather agree that is preferable to the combo dab page. However, it still lacks the proper history. It would fix things if u would restore the history. Any proposal to merge the 2 similarly-named topics into one dab page can be discussed later / separately. If you refuse to restore the history, I will just drop it as I don't know in particular that the history is very interesting or important. Note, I can't see it. But I would appreciate if you would make the fix. And then Skeezix saw the combo i created and did a redirect. Still, to get back to the correct treatment would best be done by restoring the history. --doncram (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I already restored the history. Fences&Windows 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened. The disambig history had got muddled up, it was in the deleted history of Beechwood Cemetery. It is now back where it should be. Fences&Windows 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request so fully and doing that. I don't know if there was meaningful history in the corresponding Talk page, too? If so, just to complete this it would be nice to see that placed at Talk:Beechwood Cemetery (disambiguation), currently a redlink. If not I would recreate the Talk page to include at least {{DisambigProject}} and {{WikiProject NRHP|class=dab}} and a pointer to the previous Requested move discussion at Talk:Beechwood Cemetery#Requested move. Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing worth saving, just redirects and a notice of the RM discussion. Fences&Windows 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --doncram (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the talk page move. Just for the record, I think what you did in closing the original proposal was completely correct. I just recreated the redirect from Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa, Ontario), only because there are still several incoming links to the title. Station1 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frangipani (file system). If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. avs5221^(t|c) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not my submission. It was on behalf of someone who put it at WP:RM. Fences&Windows 13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could use your opinion

Hi, I just read the Mel Gibson article for the first time. I put up a question at the talk page here. I could really use an opinion of an experienced editor like you about whether these section are too much for a biography of a living person. If you have time, it would be appreciated since I am still learning about BLP issues. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he was in the news again today, right? I'll take a look. Fences&Windows 13:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Caponigro

Well... I took that spamy piece[4] and made it something much more neutral and encyclopedic.[5] And, not finding any about his acting anywhere other than on his own website, I removed the acting stuff as unverifiable... sticking to facts as could be cited. It appears his work is definitely of note in his industry, as they always cite him and quote him,[6] and he has found his way into numerous books as a "paragon" in his field.[7] What say? Worth a keep for further improvement, with a very careful watch-eye so the spam does not return? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I will have this one on watch myself... as the guy is IN the biz of PR, and apparently feels his late-in-life turn to acting and voice-work is worth bragging about, even when unverifiable. I suspect the SPAs Rymillcap and Lmurley may well be associated with the fellow... so we'll just have to see might return with a singleness of purpose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work on this. It's on my watchlist (as is every damn article I edit), so I might spot shennanigans. I've dropped COI notices on their talk pages. Fences&Windows 01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... looking at the histories, and their lack of response on talk pages, these two may not be back. But someone else may, as PR is this guy's business. And thanks much for the CATS. I was about to do it myself and saw you beat me to it. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Casey Reed

Did you check the page history before you deleted this? There was a lot of content at that title which had recently been removed. Hut 8.5 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-trout. Restored, speedy notice removed, blanking reverted. Fences&Windows 15:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked a question here. [8]. Yes, that's exactly how he treats editors, especially newbies.Malke2010 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, do you have any examples? Fences&Windows 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to find ya some.Malke2010 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to make diffs when threads have been archived. I can tell you the dates and times on different pages, like Karl Rove archive #8, 1713 1 Sept 2009. Or, a recent AN/I thread. I just don't know how to open an archive and make a diff.Malke2010 18:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to the history of the page rather than the archive, or just link to the archive section. Fences&Windows 19:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sent an email. Don't know how to find AN/I threads. The history there doesn't show what I'm looking for. So much traffic on that page, it quickly goes past 500 edits which is the limit.Malke2010 21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[9].Malke2010 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the dispute between you and Jusdafax. Other admins are already involved, I fail to see how my involvement would help. Fences&Windows 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a dispute w/him. You asked if that is the way he responds, and in my experience, yes, that is the way he talks to people. You asked for examples, so I found some. It's just FYI.Malke2010 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Split/Merge of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)

Fences&Windows, thanks for your reply in RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?. Although I've put up a formal RfC and asked for feedback in Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts), Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), your response is the only one I've received so far. There haven't been any objections to the split/merge, however, I'm hesitant to do so with a consensus of two. Do you think it would violate WP:CANVASS if I directly contacted those who voiced an opinion in our earlier discussion, Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Request for Comments? Location (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that'd probably be OK, as you don't know whether those people will agree or disagree with your proposal. You could also contact those who edited or commented on the criminal acts notability guide: [10][11][12]. Here's those who commented on WP:EVENT:[13]. These are the people who most care about notability in general:[14] These are the people who care about notability of people:[15][16] Fences&Windows 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the suggestions! Cheers! Location (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

That was quite gracious of you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Project Clear Vision Film

Jonvanv - I am the director of the film and the author of the article about the film. I would like to ask that you restore the page to my user area so that I may work on improving the article.

I feel that the article is worthy of inclusion because it sheds light on several factual events that had not be previously explained in Wikipedia (i.e. the possible connection between the anthrax attacks and Larry Ford). The film does have a listing in IMDB but that does not contain the detail that the Wikipedia article did. It is my belief that all the material is necessary for those researching these secret government projects to obtain a full picture of the persons and events involved.

Jonvanv (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)