User talk:Feezo

Lutici/Pomerania-Medcom closure

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

Skäpperöd—this dispute is unusual in that up to this point it has been almost entirely between you and VM. Most cases that are accepted for mediation involve more than two editors. There is little that a mediator can do when one side is unwilling to participate. Per Medcom policy, mediation is a voluntary process.

There are still a number of avenues of dispute resolution open, with the best option being RfC. Unfortunately, I do not believe you will receive much cooperation from VM in running it. His proposed question "why hasn't Skapperod presented any sources but just keeps endlessly arguing in circles" indicates that either he is not taking the dispute resolution process seriously, or that he is treating this as a user conduct issue. In either case, mediation is no longer appropriate.

If you wish to proceed with an RfC, I will be happy to review your proposed wording—your outline is a good start. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did/do take the process seriously and I rather think that the inability to provide sources (despite repeated requests) would be more indicative of "not taking the dispute resolution process seriously". And like I said at the page, if the central question is the reliability of Michalek as a source, then the natural thing to do would be to re-list it at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

It would help to resolve the part of the dispute that we keep getting stuck on. I think it might also be worth while to try RSN regardless of whether an RfC happens or not.Volunteer Marek 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the issue can be resolved by RSN alone. For example, if the consensus is that Michalek is reliable, how do we resolve the perceived conflicts between Michalek and other sources? If Michalek is found unreliable, it doesn't necessarily mean the map is inaccurate. These are the judgement calls for which we should seek consensus through an RfC. RSN isn't really intended for dispute resolution.

Note that closing the mediation doesn't mean I've given up on this — just that I considered a continuing back-and-forth discussion unlikely to succeed. If we focus on accurately and neutrally framing the issues, I think we can make progress. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But there are no conflicts between Michalek and other sources. That's the key thing here. And if Michalek's reliability isn't question then that should be dropped from the RfC. Reliability of sources shouldn't be determined by RfC, which in my experience is often driven as much by various political alliances and fillibustering as well as consideration of policy.Volunteer Marek 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary for there to be conflicts in order to ask this question—the only condition is that conflicts are perceived. In any case, it is not necessary to try to persuade me. My role as mediator—now in unofficial capacity—means that I am restricting myself to defining the parameters of the dispute. Clearly, Skäpperöd believes that Michalek conflicts with other sources, or his inclusion would not be an issue. He may be right, or he may be wrong. But either way, we must present both your cases to the community so that a consensus may be reached. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Nomination of Arthur Bowen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Bowen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Bowen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment Publications

Hi Feezo,

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

Thanks, MP 198.228.228.158 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there—

The primary reason I deleted the page is that it appeared to contain material taken from the company's website. Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that content be published under two particular free licenses to be used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information.

There is another issue—Wikipedia's function is that of an encyclopedia, not a business directory or marketing service, and articles are expected to be written from a neutral point of view. I encourage you to read our FAQ for organizations for more information. You will also find instructions there on how to proceed should you wish to recreate the article.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice for the maturing editor

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

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

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

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

Tony the Marine's post on your talk page explains the situation pretty well, I think. Political disputes are among the most difficult to resolve, since viewpoints tend to be inflexible and subjective. For this reason, I've found that structured processes like RfC, which can establish consensus within a larger body of editors, tend to be more successful than freeform debate in the original group. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I kicked off an RfC at Puerto Rico, but for this round I don't think there is much more that I can say on the subject to be more persuasive. I placed a notice of the RfC on the project pages which list Puerto Rico as priority, Puerto Rico, Latin America, United States, to publicized it. In the mean time I want to double check my interpretation of sources with a notice on reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Feezo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider edit on handcuff article

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

Include "Robotic Handcuff" Article

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

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

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

Telford Memories

Hi there,

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

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

Regards

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

Welcome to Wikipedia! — I deleted the page under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion A7 — no disrespect intended towards Telford or this organization.

Although anyone is allowed to create an article, the page needs to demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines to be eligible for permanent inclusion. In this case, the guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web) — particularly, the criteria section. If you think you can show that the page meets the criteria, feel free to submit an articles for creation request or create a userspace draft. I can recover the deleted contents for you if you like, but it would probably not be a good idea to recreate the article until another editor has had a chance to review it. Wikipedia:Your first article may be helpful in getting started. If it turns out that the website doesn't meet the notability requirements, you could help improve the Telford article instead.

Feel free to ask me any questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page for assistance. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

edit handcuff page

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

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

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

Miguel Almonte

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

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

More sockpuppets

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

Thanks, blocked. I've also semi-protected Maya the Bee (character). Let me know of any further mischief. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing talk page access for blocked user

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

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

hi

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

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

Mediator required

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

Feezo, I have added the Pro case for using M's quote. However, could you please sign your RfC draft proposal so that other editors don't get the idea that I put that forward. Btw, I think the draft looks good.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to add the RfC to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music/Article alerts listing?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a wikiproject banner; that should take care of it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal of semi-protection from my userpage

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

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

Re: Ayers Rock

Hi, just writing to say sorry, but I don't think I'll be chiming in on the RfC. I'm a bit frazzled from my own months-long, drawn-out battle over content on a different page, and I will be quite busy this month with offline concerns. Chubbles (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Ayers Rock RfM

Feezo, my undiluted thanks to you for your patience, wisdom, and above all the enormous amount of time given to the RfM. You could see that I was getting cabin fever due to the extended nature of the negotiations. It was like being in a meeting at work for six months! I don't like meetings. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorset Horn

Hi! What happened here? Breed names are invariably capitalised in WikiProject Agriculture. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Ilott

I was scanning WP:TOPRED and I noticed Anthony Ilott, which says you said it was deleted from a deletion discussion. Is that accurate? I didn't see a deletion discussion linked there, as is normally done on redlink pages. I'm not 100% sure the guy is notable, but google news threw out some hits. For example: www.ex@miner.com/article/british-actor-anthony-llott (bl@cklisted) Because you said it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, do I need special permission to re-create it? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayers Rock: possible COI

Having dealt with CPD in an adversarial situation I may not be impartial in judging whether he has crossed over from being a general editor at Ayers Rock to display conflicts of issue. He has acknowledged communicating, via intermediaries, with former band members and a family member of one. He has modified content in the article based on those communications and on discussions held with individuals he acknowledges are OR. Some of this is discussed at the talkpage's subsection How close? I proposed that a template be added to the talkpage to alert editors to the situation. CPD has not yet responded to that request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ayers Rock (band):creation of new lead

Feezo, following your participation at Ayers Rock (band), there has been a growing level of cooperation between the warring parties. With more work having been done, and issues resolved, I have written a draft of the new lead, which you may read at the sandbox. Your thoughts, and opinions are sought on every aspect re suitability as the new lead. Thanking you in advance. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More problems at Ayers Rock (band)

Feezo, a hostile atmosphere has descended at Ayers Rock, in that editors are refusing to listen to each other (again), and the situation has escalated to the extent that the participation of an administrator or a very experienced editor is required. Discussion/arguments have centred on proposed major changes to the structure of the article. These discussions became deadlocked. Recently, I have requested that shaidar cuebiyar participate with me in "some form of mediation or RfC or Third Party opinion process." See [4] In spite of this, and the fact that he does not have a consensus for such change, shaidar cuebiyar has forged ahead regardless, dismissing my opposition. These important changes require a more thorough examination by the community, or the opinion of an expert Third Party. shaidar cuebiyar's actions of 21 May (see these diffs [5], and [6]) in radically altering the structure are examples of behaviour described in Examples of disruptive editing point 4. Could you or another suitably qualified editor please join us to restore order? Could you advise, please, if I should take further action such as posting at ANI? CaesarsPalaceDude 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I dispute CaesarsPalaceDude's contention here, I believe he himself made changes to the structure of the article while a discussion was in progress between three editors. Myself, CaeserPalaceDude and Nøkkenbuer.

During that discussion, CaesarsPalaceDude attempted to limit my responses both in time and in position on the article's talkpage.

I supported Nøkkenbuer's call for the article to be more in tune with best practices at FA and GA music articles on artists. Hence a consensus of two editors against a third had been reached.

CaesarsPalaceDude's phrase "I have guillotined the discussion, and taken pre-emptive action by transfering the proposed article into article space" some five days ago summarises his position.

I pointed out that he was not listening to the advice of two others: both Nøkkenbuer and I preferred a different structure to the article's or to his more recent proposal but he forged ahead with his preferred option without stopping.

Once he made the changes he wanted, he called on me to not edit the article from its then-form for some three weeks. I refused to adhere to his injunction.

I believe CaesarsPalaceDude is attempting to exert ownership of the article and its talkpage.

I believe I have the right to present the article in a better style than it was and one which is more in tune with FA and GA music article criteria than the one which existed at that time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar update: the last paragraph of his latest post contains wording which is very close to taunting. How far does this editor need to go before he is sanctioned? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

CaesarsPalaceDude, I think Shaidar cuebiyar's concerns over the namespacing of the draft are worth consideration. The principle I think applies here is "be bold, but not reckless". Perhaps it was worth trying to jump-start the discussion—we're always free to admit that it didn't work and go back, after all. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Feezo, thankyou for your thoughtful reply, which I will continue to study, and consider. The recent activities at this article are like some people's golf swings; there is so much which is wrong that it's difficult to know where to start. Viewed from another angle, the "very early" placing of the draft into namespace precipitated a large amount of editing, and much more focused discussion at the Talk page. I'm interested in your comment: "we're always free to admit that it didn't work and go back". I don't wish to focus on "didn't work", but rather on "go back". I'm not sure I understand, and could you, please, expand on that thought? Also, is the discussion about the structure of the article dead, and does Shaidar cuebiyar's flimsy majority count as a consensus now that he has gone ahead, and changed the article to his structure without my agreement? The benefit of your experience would be greatly appreciated. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Onion 64x64.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Onion 64x64.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche

User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page

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

Hello,

A page I created, Niyya Farms. Sorry if it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will remove every biased reference and make the article very neutral if you can please restore it and give me pointers where necessary.

Thank you

RE: Deleted Page

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

No, I am not an affiliate of the company but I did lift content from their website. That was poorly done now that I have ready the copyright policy. How do I fix this?

Stephen King 10:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Creation is a good place to start. You can get feedback there before moving the page into the main article space. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi how are you?

I seen your post on your page regarding reasonable rollback requests. --Giooo95 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a little more information; are you asking for the rollback userright? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, sorry just remembered to check this. Yes I was interested in asking for rollback. I know my numbers are down but I am interested in helping out more and as the holidays have passed, I will have more time to assist. :) --Giooo95 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The standard minimum is 200 mainspace edits. Your contributions look good so far, but I don't see a lot of reversion work yet. I recommend you keep using Twinkle and then ask again after building a record of good reverts. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of OC&C Strategy Consultants page - clarity on reason would be helpful

You have today deleted the OC&C Strategy Consultants page and I'd like some clarity on why. The user who put the page up for speedy deletion said it replicated an earlier deleted page, while it is based on some of the same content (it is a company, it's core business is just that and can't be changed) it has had an overhaul. The content is factual, has multiple links, increased notability which is all verifiable. What is the reason for deletion other than it speaks of the core business as per a previous page? (Alltherightthings (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

For being promotional in nature. Wikipedia policy requires articles be written from a neutral point of view. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I access the deleted page to update it rather than having to recreate the page? Alltherightthings (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the draft version (which I moved to Draft:OC&C Strategy Consultants) has the deleted material. If it's not up to date, I can provide the deleted version. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The content has now been updated and bias removed - if you can review and move out of draft that would be great. Alltherightthings (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the article does not currently come close to meeting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Regarding the references, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a citable source. For information about contributions connected with a business, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just gone to edit the draft and it says it has now been deleted? Can you please make this draft available again so it can be updated. ThanksAlltherightthings (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Feezo, I have added external links to the draft page and removed promotional content. Does the page now meet the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltherightthings (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then tell me what you think. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued support to help us get this right. I've read the additional links you shared and have again reviewed the content and also run a comparison against other consultancy pages. Hopefully you will agree this is a purely fact based page that can be promoted back to the live site. ThanksAlltherightthings (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead looks a lot better, but several other sections look like corporate PR. I would also try to reduce the article's reliance on primary sources, in order to show that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, note that I have no more authority than any other editor over whether the page is included, and can only offer my opinion on whether it complies with Wikipedia's content guidelines/policies. If you'd like to seek additional input, feel free to ask on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOVER listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOVER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOVER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

False edits I didn't make

For some reason I am accused of making edits on Wikipedia. I read Wikipedia, but I have never edited it. I just wanted you to clear that up, please. Either that, or someone is using my IP to do some stupid stuff.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.83.155 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi — if you didn't make the edits, then don't worry about the warnings. We know that IP addresses, especially mobile ones, are often shared. If people are making bad edits on an address you share, the worst that's likely to happen is a temporary block from editing. You can avoid this in most cases by creating an account. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Feezo. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please consider reactivation at MedCom

This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedCom and an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding — I'm glad you found a volunteer, as I don't have the time to commit to a mediation case right now. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

online custom framing mistakenly deleted

Hi, The online custom framing page should not have been deleted. Online custom framing is not an alternative to picture framing (like block printing) it is the process of ordering a custom picture frame through an online retailer. Please reinstate the page. Thanks, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharysegal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

At the time of deletion, the article, in its entirety, read:

Online Custom Framing refers to the growing market in the United States of getting art, photography, memorabilia custom framed via online retailers.

If you'd like to create an article on this subject, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Your first article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Feezo.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Feezo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

shift2 deleted pageKaarenwv (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

not sure why you deleted my page? was in process of working on it. not sure why it violates any rules. was just going to state what the company is and what we do, just like any other company on wikipedia. perhaps i am confused as i have never created a page before....if you can help me that would be great thank you.