User talk:Fainites

Archive Archives

archive 1.archive 2.archive 3.archive 4

	WP:AIV			WP:ANI			WP:NPP			WP:RPP			WP:RFR			WP:AFD			WP:XFD
	CAT:CSD			WP:CSD			WP:RM			WP:RAA			WP:DR			WP:TM			WP:TT
	WP:RCU			WP:LOP			CAT:AB			WP:BS			WP:RD			WP:NFC			WP:IUP

/Sandbox Reactive attachment disorderAttachment disorderAttachment therapyMaternal deprivationAttachment-based therapy (children)Truce termAttachment theory [1]recent changesnew pages balkans warning balkans decision

Hi reply to your message

Hi mate thanks for your assistance, I am as you can see still very haphazardly using wikipedia and learning the difficult way. As you can see I am trying to get rference 136 to be reference 45, it is the same reference, if you can assist and let me know what i was doing wrong that would be great. Reference 45 is under the title attachment in adults, and 136 under criticisms from 1980's. Also i don't know if this is the correct way to respond to the message you left me or not, please advise.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robboholic (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychologist

Hi Fainites, The psychologist article needs some work. I started working on the opening paragraph. Could you help with that? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Love to help in a bit but I've got Attachment theory going through FAC just at the moment.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll ask on the psychology project. Keep up the good work with Attachment theory. best regards, ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarner Litigation and Complaints

Dear Fainites:

First, I am not a banned user.

Second, what I have posted is not nonsense. The banning of the WordPress blogs is VERY well documented, as is the litigation involving Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa.

Didacticderivative (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ATTN: FAINITES

Greetings.

Once again, I am not a banned user, it is not appropriate or productive for you to jump to such conclusions.

Second, I know this is not an "attack ACT" page, but a balanced approach must be taken. The removed blogs were pro-ACT. Mr. Sarner's reaction to their removal was made in a public forum.

Insofar as there was previous discussion of ACT members' credentials, Mr. Sarner's involvement in litigation is also appropriate, as it gives a fuller picture. Mr. Sarner is described in various places as a "mathematician and cryptographer"; a review of his inventions gives some insight into him.

Didacticderivative (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaints were made against the ACT website for alleged copyright violations under the DMCA, ie the quotes of those that ACT designate as attachment therapists. The way the DMCA works means that it is easier for a commercial host to remove a website/blog than take a stand against possibly false claims and risk a claim. ACT's website now appears to be in exactly the same form with another host therefore presumably the threats of legal action against ACT, shown on the Search for Survivors blog, were not carried out. I recall this because it meant changing the links to ACTs website. No doubt a complete history could be argued to serve the interests of "balance" but what on earth has that to do with ACT as an organisation? As for the other blog you've added as also removed from it's orginal host, firstly, it's not ACT and secondly, that also appears to have another host and appears to be in an identical format. So what? How does chasing websites and blogs from one host to another tell anybody anything about ACT? Similarly so what about Sarners past involvement in litigation about voting machines. What does "involvement" mean anyway? This is just the usual mudslinging for which the User:DPeterson entity, which I believe you to be, was indefinitely banned. The same personal attacks that were made all over Wikipedia were also made all over various blogs, as were subsequently these attacks, and these are now moving to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here for you to pursue personal vendettas against real world enemies. Now - as you are most probably a banned user, and if not, at best a meat puppet, I don't propose to discuss this any further with you. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[2]

Henriks tool +

Henrik's tool

stats

google template

isbn

Diberri

[3]

edit counts

edit counts 2

edit counts 3

Aha!

automatic cite template thingy

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}} ~~~~

[4]

favourite article

the real news

6.7.07

MOS lite

[5]

Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines WP:MEDMOS

[6]

Pending changes table

reviewing ANI

How references work

Simple references These require two parts; a) Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref> b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}"; == References == {{reflist}} (an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections) To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Fainites/reftest and try it out. Named references Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook"> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/> Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result. Citation templates You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation | last = Smith | first = John | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century | publication-date = 2001 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] | page = 125 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4 }} </ref> Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result. For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

From Robert Parks book, Voodoo Science,

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.”

SPI

{{subst:welcometest}}

WP:WARN

toolbox

New page

memo

spare imprinting pic.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[7]

[[<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ySvDoV5ZRzE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ySvDoV5ZRzE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>]]

another spare pic.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

318

User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011

Attachment theory

I am so, so sorry—I completely missed your message on my Talk page :( I'm moving this week, so my Wikipedia workings will be limited. Is there still anything I can do? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The prose does need some serious work. I'll see if I can help over the weekend. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll send her some get well wishes! Apartment hunting at the moment, will see if I can look today... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Books

Hello Fainites!

Thank you for your offer, as Awadewit has indeed sent me a looong list of books for my homework! But as I was just telling her, don't worry: I'll start with W H Smith here in Paris (now the largest English bookshop in France, I believe), where a lot of English litterature is available, and then I'll proceeed with the bigger public libraries (inexpensive, but generally effective, though a bit less with English books, I must admit).

Should be all right; but I'll remember turning to you if I can't get what I am looking for. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Fainites,

Thanks for the offer: I am taking due notice of it (even though, unfortunately, it is not a permanent offer...).

For the time being though, I believe I should be able to manage, at very little cost to myself, by taking advantage of big public libraries. My visit to WH Smith has not been quite so fruitful as hoped, even though I did find a few of the books I was looking for.

For the rest, I expect to be able to find what I need in said 'big public libraries', though I did not have time for a visit yet. In any case, I don't mean to read and use all of the list supplied by Awadewit, on top of what I have already used in my article: only her, I believe, would go to such lengths to source an article!

Best regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

tenents

Beautiful! That exactly what I was thinking. Couple of things, "The commonly observed attachment behaviour of toddlers of staying near familiar people would have had safety advantages in the environment of early adaptation which Bowlby saw as similar to current hunter gatherer societies, and has such advantages today." can be two sentences. The last sentence in the sandbox can go with where you start with "The attachment system is very robust..." and made into its own paragraph. That's it! It looks waaay better and is more in form in paragraph form, thank you for keeping on that comment. I'm gonna finish reading it through w/comments, I will, just been a bit distracted. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is easiest for you - i still had about 80% to go and I want to see that thing as an FA. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, can do. Just tap me when the new FAC is going for it and I'll start. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, just came across this Talk:Rouge_test#self-recognition_and_attachment developing the article for the rouge test. Interesting. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go. It just pops up everywhere.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that

thank you!Underlying lk (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy box

I hope you don't mind, but I love the policy box you have and I've copied it to my user page. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's nice but I like clipart rather than photos ;)--TParis00ap (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

What can I do to help? I feel responsible somehow! Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto—I've finally moved, so I can give the article the attention it deserves! Would you like me to work on the prose before you renominate? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're wondering why I haven't started, this is pretty demanding reading. This is really embarrassing, but, apart from the more biology and neuroscience-oriented paragraphs, I'm trying to make enough sense of the content to actually improve the prose :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all; I may just be out of FA-reviewing shape at the moment—I'm working two deadlines, moving house, and getting less than three hours of sleep per night. I don't have any sort of psychology background either, and it's become difficult to just go through an article with reader's (not proofreader's or translator's) eyes these past few weeks. Don't worry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

IRC

You have new messages

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

I just saw that you reverted the insertion of a ref by an IP. May I inquire as to why this was done? (This isn't a challenge, just my way of saying "this is unusual, please make me understand"). Regards, --Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. The removal makes sense now.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did I introduce any inaccuracies here? I'm trying to tread as lightly as possible, since I have no expertise in the subject matter; I hope I didn't change meanings or orders... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The sock drawer :)

Yes, I did notice it, but not being a subject expert, I left it to more informed people to judge. The other one was a no-brainer through similitude.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case

As you seem to be conversant in a related field, do you know of a user here who would be familiar enough with psychometrics and thick-hided(!) enough to want to look at the current dispute at Race and Intelligence? No problem if you can't think of any. Myself, I think it takes a good dose of masochism to want to join the melee (unfortunately, I'm already in it). Regards, --Ramdrake (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know

The usual suspect is pretending to be you on usenet. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/203687c06c41a139# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.113.238 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text for attachment theory

Hmm, your change to Template:Child development diagram worked for me in Attachment theory. When you change a template, sometimes you have to shift-reload the article including the template before getting the new version of the template; perhaps that's what happened to you? Thanks for adding the alt text; I tried to make it a bit shorter without losing any info. Eubulides (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory FAC, part 2: the vengeance!

I see Awadewit has succeeded where I failed quite miserably. Perhaps I can give it a well-deserved proper review this time... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bring it on! Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unopposed RFAs

The one and only RFA candidate I've ever nominated sailed through unopposed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Moose-Imprinting-sr81-15.jpg

Responding to your message about this file. I obtained a permission to post it (and any others in the series) by email from its author, Dr. Alexander Minaev, the creator of the site at http://www.moosefarm.newmail.ru/ , in November 2006. I don't know if OTRS already was around at the time, but I certainly had not heard about it at the time. I wrote in Russian, asking for permission, referring to teh by-sa licence described at http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses , and he kindly responded, "абсолютно все материалы с сайта Вы можете копировать и использовать как угодно, в том числе и в коммерческих целях, при условии ссылки на меня и на сайт", i.e. "you can copy absolutely all materials from the site, and use them in any manner, including commercially, provided they are attributed to me and linked to the site". With this permission in hand, I posted the images with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. Vmenkov (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really great, especially since it was such an unambiguous response! Vmenkov, do you still have the email? If so, this procedure should be followed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've forwarded the pertinent emails to permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org. Vmenkov (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed Vmenkov.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And now, for something very nearly completely different

		The (Probably Misattributed) Churchill Quote on Preposition Placement Award For Outstanding, Even if Unintentional, Fearlessness in Preposition Placement, or: the Non-Barnstar Award Least Likely to Feature Prominently on Someone's User Page
		For boldly placing prepositions where lesser writers would not have them, here is a secure base to explore from and return to. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Churchill at least knew what a preposition was though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ducklings

	The Barnstar of Sisyphus
	For Attachment theory getting to FA status, because damn. If it ain't going uphill the entire way, what do we get out of it other than months of frustration and disaffection? --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And lines of ducklings following us everywhere. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool awards guys. Thanks! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Help at Any Cost

Congratulations on Attachment theory! I wonder if I could prevail upon you for a psychology-related peer review? I put the article about the book Help at Any Cost up for peer review. Input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Help at Any Cost/archive1. Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've come across this book when looking into Attachment therapy as it appears some ex-attachment therapy practitioners have found a home in the troubled teen industry.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll get the book.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, thank you! Cirt (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[8][9]

Baiting

The general negative terms in which Mattisse and her mentors are regularly characterized in hyperbolic language is 'baiting' in my eyes. It is sure to frustrate, and get a rise out of, Mattisse. However, as a specific example, the complaints about her recent tagging (and the over-the-top tone/characterization thereof) seem to be a good example of baiting in my eyes. Anyone remotely familiar with the situation is aware that such overblown statements will fluster and consternate Mattisse. Poking Mattisse with a stick (unfairly), knowing full well the kind of rise it will get out of her, seems accurately called 'baiting' in this context. Calling it 'baiting' is being quite generous and tactful in my opinion, at least compared to far more blunt (and honest) labels. I hope this clarifies. Please feel free to leave me a message if you would like further examples, or if I can provide a better clarification of my views. Vassyana (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I can see that the general cynicism towards Mattisse and her mentors could seem like that to an observor. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. I am afraid that people who feel they have been targeted by Mattisse over long periods of time may well appear hypersensitive to those merely reading the diffs but they are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. You might like to read this. But at the end of the day, does any of that matter now if a solution is found and the Plan works? I cannot see how assuming bad faith on the part of those who feel aggrieved helps. Nearly all of them are editors in good standing, not known for causing trouble, forming cabals or pursuing vendettas. Any "FAC editors" will have gone through countless tough reviews. How likely is it that this disparate collection of editors have banded together to bait and vilify just Mattisse for no good reason? Mattisses poking of other editors, particularly One Who has Asked Not To Be Named tends to increase the more trouble she gets into, derailing everything when there are trenchantly worded responses. Personally I stay out of the way except for official processes where evidence is required, but I do look out for things. I maintain that I have not seen anybody set out to "bait" Mattisse. I have seen some very strong and unfortunately worded views expressed about her in circumstances where, rightly or wrongly, others feel she is baiting them. I can see how those who do not come from the same perspective as people with histories with Mattisse could see this as a form of "wind-up" or baiting of Mattisse. In general I don't think it actually is. Let's hope the Plan works. Plenty of space for every one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ward (law) Polygynandry Confession System Anthony Hunger Mood (psychology) Akrotiri and Dhekelia Shared parenting Bigamy Yus Avolition Therapy Ferrara Alogia Greatness Erotophobia Euthymia (medicine) Taking Children Seriously

Cleanup Boyfriend Personality psychology Common-law marriage Merge Self-help Object relations theory Coaching Add Sources Polyandry Parental responsibility (access and custody) Nullity (conflict) Wikify Jealousy Emancipation of minors Jean Piaget Expand Babywearing Cohabitation Parent

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Greetings of the Season
		A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of my earlier work. That was done in December of 1840, before I had had my cataract removed, so the violet end of the spectrum was not available to me, although I did notice the aprons on a few ladies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer 2

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know I reverted your post-closure comment on the RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[10] memo.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Appreciate your note.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Attachment theory review

Hey mate, haven't seen any activity from you in the attachment theory review lately. Do you wish to continue? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to hear it, I'll check it out either today or tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Children's literature

I have recently proposed some extensive changes to the layout of project pages in WikiProject Children's literature. The changes can be viewed in my sandbox, and are summarised on this talk page. The proposed changes include major reformatting of the main project page, the creation of five new project sub-pages, and moves to two existing sub-pages. Please look over these proposals, and join the discussion. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Court of Chancery

Ironholds has done some work on the above article since you left comments. Do you want to re-visit? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Marwari horse

Hi Fainites! In the past, you have commented on at least one horse breed article at FAC. Marwari horse is currently there (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marwari horse/archive1 for the review page), and has dropped into the "older nominations" section of the list. If you would be interested in reading through the article, any comments you have would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's Literature Collaboration Article

WikiProject Children's literature has recently launched a new Collaboration department. The first Collaboration Article is Curious George (book) - please contribute in any way that you can! If you wish to be alerted to future collaboration articles, this template will be updated regularly, and can be included on your user page as a template. Thank you, strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

12.183.100.130

12.183.100.130 (talk · contribs) is spamming the information to more articles. Is there a relevant SPI report that should be indicated on this ips talk page? Should the spamming be stopped? --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any comments to MastCell. The lag is making it difficult to see what this ip has done since the warnings. If this is a sock, it should be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

title

I'm not sure why the opacity has stopped working. I removed the alpha item from the style tag as a temporary fix. I'll try to work out exactly what's happening. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Children's literature

WikiProject Children's literature has been invited by the Wikipedia Signpost to feature in the WikiProject Report in the July 19 issue. Please contribute to this report by answering the interview questions here. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Not only was I charmed by your compliment, your user page gave a laugh too. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 14:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roald Dahl task

Hello, Fainites, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join! Please feel free to add to this list. If you feel a task has been completed feel free to remove it and start a new one! Become a member of the task force and encourage others to do so. Tag articles for the task force. Improve: George's Marvellous Medicine. Improve: Going Solo. Work on all Roald Dahl related articles mainly focusing on stubs. Assess articles on class and importance. Get Roald Dahl to FA or GA

sillybillypiggy^{talk to me sign!} 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychology task list

...isn't mine. The Psychology wikiproject and portal seem to have been pretty much abandoned for a few years, and I've been trying to update them in the hope of kicking the wikiproject back to life. I haven't altered the task list yet and think it could do with rewriting to give editors a broad choice of specific actions. That said, developmental psychology does need expert attention. If you can persuade someone to help, that would be fantastic! MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

I was looking at potential candidates for RFA, and you clearly qualify with three FAs in your credit, and some other wikipedia related work. Interested in one? Thanks Secret ^account 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Er. Gosh. Well. The difficulty is, alot of being an admin seems to involve things like AfD and ANI and copyright. Not things I hang about at. However, I have been through various arbitrations/failed mediations/RfCs etc (not as the subject) so I am familiar with conflict and dispute resolution! I've recently been doing things like recent changes, pending changes and rollback as I've been having a bit of a break from serious content editing as I've been rather busy in RL. Used to do some reviewing too but not recently. Does this fit the bill? I rather suspect the tools might be wasted on me. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fainites Secret ^account 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Early congratulations on your RfA, you'll do a great job with the mop! Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've added you to WP:100. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! If you've any mopping questions, feel free to ask and I'll help as best I can :) GedUK  12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

'Grats on being handed the mop, and best wishes! Jusdafax 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know you were nominated. I keep RFA off my watchlist for a reason, but I'da voted support. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Fladrif (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's your free T-shirt!

• (edit conflict) Congratulations! I hope this new t-shirt fits you! ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! And thanks to everyone who voted too - and to Moni3 for her virtual vote! I hope you'll all feel free to give me a nudge when if I go insane with the power.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and best of luck! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

W00t, another redlink goes blue! My condolences on your promotion. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A belated congrats! Also, thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of kind of. I kinda went a bit nuts and did a personal thanks to (almost) everyone who !voted (thus the "semi"). I don't blame you for not going that route! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How could I have missed this? Anyway, enjoy the mop :) If you need anything, I'm all ears. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fv.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more

• In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Fainites has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Attachment therapy

just a quick observation. an edit that removes 1,300 bytes of material from an article should probably not be marked 'minor'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the material to a different section (patient recruitment) without deleting it and then went back and deleted it from the original section (prevalence) so no substantial material was removed overall.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. I just saw on my watchlist a substantive removal marked 'minor', I didn't check into it closely. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks on the userbox! I edited one based on a comment form louielouie on the fringe theories noticeboard talk page. feel free to add it and join the madness at FTN. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of attachment therapy, I noticed this letter in the Sunday New York Times (Ctrl-F for "Jean Mercer"). MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.No prizes for guessing what would happen.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychology barnstar

Only when reading the recent Signpost did I realise your role in creating a good proportion of the current FA content on Psychology. Since that work took place when this barnstar didn't exist, justice requires that...

		The Psychology Barnstar
		Awarded to Fainites in recognition of past and ongoing work improving Wikipedia's Psychology articles to the highest quality. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thanks! Though Rudolf Wolters was not psychology. Does this mean you have to make it proportionately smaller? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's and Young Adult literature Newsletter

Newsletter September 2010
Project news Welcome to the first edition of the WikiProject Children's literature newsletter! If you are interested in contributing or want more information, you can find us in the Outreach department. The project now has a list of its most popular pages. The mosts visited page in our project's scope in July was List of Twilight characters which was visited 538088 times from July 1st to July 31st; which means it was visited a whopping 17357 a day. Due to the combined efforts of several editors, the backlog of nearly 4000 unassessed articles has been eradicated in less than six months. Thanks to everyone who took part!	Collaboration article Don't forget that the current Children's literature collaboration article is Curious George (book). Be sure to get involved and together we can make the article a better quality. From the Editors Hello and welcome to this, the inaugural edition of the WikiProject Children's literature newsletter. We're very excited about it and we hope that you will enjoy reading it. We're still in the early stages, though, and need your suggestions and feedback. Do you like the newsletter? What would you like to see in the next edition? Please give us your feedback on this issue here. We really value it. Strdst grl: Editor Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor
Current discussions The project's current discussions are as follows: Job Centre: A discussion which deals with a proposal for a Job Centre in the style of the WikiProject Novels Job Centre. Categories and project scope: A discussion which deals with the question as to whether or not some comics come under the project's scope. Project Scope: A discussion which centers on the gray areas in the project's scope. Categories and sub-categories - WP:DUPCAT: This discussion asks the question, should articles be added to a category and one of its subcategory if it fits into both? Complete Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

Got a suggestion for a future issue or want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

For the lovely vote :) and for the comment on my stupid poetry :):) Best Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Fainites's Day!

User:Fainites has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fainites's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fainites! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Three FAs helps, plus other things. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Children and Young Adult's literature Newsletter - October 2010

Newsletter October 2010
Project news As our banner proclaims, we now have an IRC channel at ##wpchildrensliterature on Freenode. In the future, the project may hold live discussions there. To access the channel from your browser, click here. Abcassionchan has become a member of the project. Thanks for joining Abcassionchan! Slowly but surely, more Unnassessed articles are reappearing. Please help the project by joining in and assessing some of them.	Unreferenced BLPs There's only a few Unreferenced BLPs (Biographies of living people) left. Why not head over to the page and help by adding sources to the articles? It's an important job, that requires assistance. From the Editor Hello and welcome to this, the second edition of the newsletter. This month, I need to ask a favour of you. You may have seen that this month I had to write the newsletter by my self. I really need your help with writing and giving suggestions. If you have a suggestion for a future edition, please list it at the tips desk. You may also notice the links underneath this piece. Please use them to share this newsletter on your favourite social networks. Until next time, happy editing! Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor Share:  Twitter · Identica · Facebook · Delicious · Reddit · Digg · Buzz · StumbleUpon
Ways to promote the project If you're interested in promoting the project, why not visit the Outreach department for more ideas? There are many ways to promote the project. One of them is to add the project's ad to your userpage. To do this, simply add the code {{Template:Wikipedia ads|ad=212}} to your talk or user page. Another thing you can do is to invite other users to join the project. To find prospective members search the history pages of Children's literature-related articles and invite people who seem to be deoing good things for these articles. The code for the invitation template is {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Invite}}. Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DOB & Age formatting in Infoboxes (re: Ruth Holmes discussion)

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at Talk:Ruth Holmes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to: A word of advice

Regarding your comments at my talk page:

Fainites, I thank you for the input, and especially the respectful and polite way in which you have imparted it. I will take your words under advisement in the future. Also, regarding my use of the word "lazy", I have issued an apology to Malleus [11]. Once again, I thank you for your polite and respectful advice, -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, -- Cirt (talk), award The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Fainites, for the polite and kind tone in which you have imparted constructive criticism to me. I really appreciate that. A lot. It meant a lot to me. And I will do my best to learn from your advice in the future. Thank you very much. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Best of luck.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinpoche

Hi, as this user has not withdrawn their statement telling me to go **** myself at WQA, it might appear to be stirring things up for me to contact them on their talk page, however the current user page User:Rinpoche does not meet the guidelines of User pages unless it is clear that s/he is applying a recognized Dispute resolution process. Could you please take a look and advise me on the best action to take here? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

*coughs*

User:RankinUberall. Quack quack quack. 75.102.215.59 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought so too! Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as long as you do a sockpuppet check. 75.102.214.133 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Got round to it in the end. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks page.

Hey, I have left a reply on the page for you. Jayy008 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I meant this: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts Jayy008 (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:British Empire

As of right now, I've removed/replaced/fixed all but two of the problematic images. The first is File:The British Empire.png (the infobox image) - "Maps can be copyrighted (see commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images). Unless the maps in those books were not copyrighted (either using public domain maps or creation from data sets), retracing them would be a copyright violation." The second is File:British Empire 1897.jpg - "Link does not show or help to verify this map was created or published in 1897. Neither does it help to verify {{PD-old}} since the cartographer might have created this map at the age of 25 and lived till he was 80 (1952), which would not be 70 years ago." If you can come up with a way to fix those two problems (or find good replacements), then I think all the image issues would be addressed. However, that's assuming the images in the article remain static - I've already reverted the re-addition of some problematic images. Other than that, I think all the sourcing stuff is already done, so we should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Does it show the Empire as it was in 1922, or its evolution up to 1922? What exactly does the copyright notice say? Where was the atlas published? Copyright rules can get so complicated...Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the blank map - that definitely applies to some of the images I removed. However, the lead map says that it was derived from maps published in atlases, which may or may not be copyrighted. I'll see if I can track those down. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my guess is that your atlas map would be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Edit: I think {{PD-UK}} would also apply, and that means the map would be suitable for Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Now all I have to do is find a 2 1/2 foot wide colour copier. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Working on it - sent an email to the people at the Cambridge U Library to see if they know where it's from. In the meantime, could you check with Jappalang that his concern about the infobox image has been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic development on the 1897 map - I heard back from Cambridge, and they don't know its copyright status or its source either, because they got it from "Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons". Apparently the description page said it was PD, so they took it at its word. They think the original source, which they didn't make note of, was either in Spanish or was described in Spanish, but they're not really sure. It's not on OCLC. I've contacted the original uploader here, but as he/she uploaded the image in 2004 I don't know if we'll get an answer. I'll keep digging, but it's not looking promising. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh bugger. Still - if nobody knows who owns it - there's nobody to pay the royalties too. Mind you - I live the idea of Cambridge getting it's stuff from Wikipedia. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a more...decorative map. We can revert if we ever figure out where the 1897 version came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Jappalang added this map to the hitlist. Did you find any blank maps of Africa? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Is the BOTs image from the same base map as the lead image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we just wait to see what Dana says. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

I don't know if there is a rule. But you could ask somebody at Wikiproject:Television. They're always very helpful. What they'll say if use final ratings (I'm guessing). It's just using the average is what's done, and what's always been done. If you say 2.05, it's inaccurate because that's only the first half of the episode, so that needs to be specified when using it. When ratings are calculated, they use the average viewers for the full episode. TVBTN gives you more information for the tv obsessives like myself. Do you want me to ask at the project for you and point you to the discussion when it's done? Jayy008 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do. Do you have an opinion to add or just want to know the final result? Jayy008 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No reply, so far. Jayy008 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: British Empire FAR

Yes, Fainites, that is okay. Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png, the base map you suggest traces to File:Commonwealth Realms map.png, which does not provide any sources for how it was made (replication of "free" maps or created from co-ordinate datasets). Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two matched; File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png is derived from File:BlankMap-World3.svg. Well done. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Children and Young Adult's literature WikiProject Newsletter - Issue 3

Newsletter November 2010
Project news The project's most popular page in September was Harry Potter which received 481902 views throughout the month. That means that it received on average 16063 views each day. It's a GA which is Top importance within the project's scope. To see more popular pages head over to the list now. The Children's literature Portal is up for Peer review. Please feel free to chime in here. Pandawing$ has joined the project. Thanks for joining Pandawing$.	Articles needing infoboxes There are lots of articles within this project's scope without infoboxes. They can help to improve the quality of an article by adding a brief overview. It's a task that won't take very long so why not head over now and help out? From the Editor Hello and welcome to this, the third edition of our WikiProject's newsletter. In this month's newsletter, I encountered a problem, well, two problems actually. I needed some help with the production: suggestions and other writers. As with last month, if you have any suggestions for the newsletter, please add them at the Tips Desk. If you would like to write some of the next issue, that's even better! Just come go over to the main Newsletter page to see where you can help out, and of course, as always, please give us your feedback on this edition, on the talk page. Until next time, happy editing! Rock drum: Editor MessageDeliveryBot: Distributor Share:  Twitter · Identica · Facebook · Delicious · Reddit · Digg · Buzz · StumbleUpon
Children's literature news The Lost Hero: The first book in Percy Jackson & the Olympians author Rick Riordan's new series, The Heroes of Olympus, has been released. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movie Part 1: The first part of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movie will be released worldwide this month, coming out on November 19 in both the USA and the UK. British PMs reveal favourite childhood books: The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his deputy Nick Clegg last week revealed their favourite childhood books to be Our Island Story and The Gruffalo respectively. Todo List: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Children's literature at 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fainites – tks for your kind words on my talk page. Cheers! • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Especially on controversial topics, which have been the subject of WP:SPA-targeting [12] and massive sockfarm disruption [13], one must take care to maintain meticulous sourcing for every single sentence - with regards to new article creation within those topics. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Any advice with regards to this particular topic/article/WP:SPA/socks issue? -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A party with a COI brought this to WP:BLPN. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ips

Hi! Thank you for your comment. Can you show me what division of wikiipedia you are talking about and walk me through the process? Thanks, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fainties:

Thank you for your easy to follow instructions on hot to bust creeps and sockpuppet. So are you like, encouraging me to post a sockpuppet denunciation on Matthew I. Gnash? I totally will if you want me to. All the best, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No I am not encouraging you to post a sockpuppet investigation request. Really I am saying put up or shut up! If you have a genuine reason to believe he is using a sockpuppet to double-vote at AfD's or create the appearance of false consensus on talkpages or in articles then by all means, make a report. Just arguing it at length at Projecst and article talkpages without pursuing it properly is merely disruptive and tends to derail discussions.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor can't even spell my name, and honestly is just a troll. Sorry the editor bothered you about me. I did a SPI on "her" and it seems this person is indeed a sock puppet of a previously blocked editor. Mathewignash (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm not surprised. Give them enough rope.....etc etc! I was watching to see what "she" did but usually I miss the denouments being on UK time! Best of luck. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Well said ! Bishonen | talk 00:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

y did you delete page u fukin nazi do u support nazi peoples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.68.58 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The "article" was anti-semitic nonsense as is a previous edit of yours. You are now blocked for a month. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

complex trauma

Why do u continue to remove relevant and appropriately sourced material? Isn't that considered bad faith and an edit war??? 206.217.67.66 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In so far as it is relevent it is already better addressed in other sections of the article - something that has been pointed out to you before. Mostly though it is neither accurate, relevent nor appropriately sourced. Finally, you are a sock of a long term abuser, permanently banned, who frequently adds this material.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the input and the welcome links!

I did not remove any content though, simply changed some locations to make the article better readable. Most important I moved the part about assesment to a section of it's own, and wrote a small part about the difference between tests and questionnaires and DIF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MethAdvice2010 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Fainites. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spelling error

Howdy Fainites. The name you're speaking of is TharkunColl. GoodDay (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The first time, you had it ThurkinColl. GoodDay (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation needed - Iran-Iraq war

I have Iran-Iraq War on my watch-list, and I noticed that you are removing parties that were associated with Iraq during the war, calling it "controversial" additions that need to be discussed, yet you don't seem bothered about the same type of entries under Iran's side. This seems like a selective POV interpretation of what is and what is not OK. This would be normal if you were acting as just another editor. But that doesn't seem to be your capacity on that page, as you have used your administrative powers to block one of the parties involved in this dispute. Please clarify what your role on that page is, as an administrator can not be involved in in a content dispute , and at the same time, threaten/block the other parties involved. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in the content dispute. I blocked Scythian77 for abusive edit summaries, (calling other editors "racist") edit warring and stonewalling attempts to resolve disputes on the talkpage. as can be seen from the block summary. He called other editors "racist" more than once. I have no idea whether he is right or not about the content but no doubt if he is right he could produce sources to say so. Very shortly afterwards IPs started making the same edits. On the not unreasonable assumption that it might be related I removed those edits with the advice to discuss it on the talkpage. This was not done at the time. If you say there is more edit warring/abuse/disruptive editing going on there now by all means take it to ANI so it can be looked at. Believe me, Kurdo, I hold no brief for either side. If you say properly sourced information is being kept out and improperly sourced information is being kept in, I would be happy to look at the situation if the relevent sources are clearly set out on the talkpage but I am unlikely to have the sources available to me unless they are on the internet.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Going back and looking further into at Scythian77's edits, he was indeed being abusive and unreasonable, which did a disservice to his own edits/arguments. I was just wondering why the IP's edits were being reverted, when the other side has the exact same type of info listed with no sources. But I'll take your word for it, I understand your position now. By the way, I listed two sources for now, hopefully the other side will tolerate the well-source ed items which maybe against their POV. Cheers Kurdo777 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheist discussion at BLPN

Hi Fainites, I just spotted a comment of yours in the atheist/agnostic discussion at BLPN which I missed at the time. You were referring to the EB definition of atheists:

• Atheists. Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).

Note that the same Britannica page also provides a definition for nonreligious/agnostic, a category which includes nonbelievers:

• Nonreligious (agnostics). Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.

So they make a subtle distinction between disbelief and nonbelief, seeing the former as a more definite stance on the issue than disinterest. I would have mentioned that at the time had I seen your comment. Best, --JN466 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At one end of the spectrum - yes. However, it also includes people who express disbelief. This doesn't have to be done militantly. At it's simplest, atheists know they don't believe in god. Agnostics either aren't sure or don't care. I am simply concerned that we don't fall into the current zeitgeist of promoting the idea that atheism is a belief system. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry

Can you find the last SPI report related to PranakanLegion's edits? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To clear any confusion, I had an edit conflict with you at Attachment-based therapy (children) that wasn't flagged. Makes for a confusing edit summary when you got your edit in there before mine without my knowledge. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, weird! I can find the SPI's. Hang on a mo. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I studied with Dr. BW when he was here a couple of yrs ago and found his work helpful at my community clinic. I was researching complex trauma and noted that there is nothing there on DDP, yet there is one or two studies regarding it and so think it should be listed...maybe I don't phrase my addition correctly, but I think what I say is supported by references and so is accurate. Why are you so angry about this? PranakanLegion (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I just think you are yet another sockpuppet of the DPeterson entity who has been trying to insert adverts for this unvalidated therapy for years and who adds material that is not supported by the references. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to violate the wiki policies regarding no personal attacks and such? I just don't understand your violent objections to the sourced, referenced, and NPOV edits I made. Clearly DDP is not an unvalidated treatment...that certainly meets the wiki standard for a POV statement. My edit is NPOV. My edits are supported by the references. How are they not? Maybe it is time to have an administrator review you conduct and lack of civility. If you are such a defender of wiki, how can we get such an intervention by an unbiased administrator? PranakanLegion (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Filing a SPI report was probably the best step to take, given the extent of the past problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It's just that it takes a bit of time to do! Sorry about that. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One less distraction gone (for now). --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

• In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

• Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: The community has spoken

• Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Eickman

I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on Eickman's talk page since you blocked him, but the personal attacks have kept on going.

• Here come the lies again.
• I'm adhering to "Wikipedia policy." You people are abusing it to defend your sectarian positions
• You're a fine pair of babies playing with your dollies.
• I don't know what you're gripping, moaning, groaning, bitching, and complaining about.

StAnselm (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I appreciate the time you spent. What frustrates me is that there's typically only ever one editor interested in any given situation, so you had to take the load and it could only be dealt with as fast as you were able. Most admins just don't seem to bother with disruptive editors because it's too much hard work.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Divineofficer

I have no objection to a discussion with the editor in question. I just want to make sure that he understands that he cannot add his own opinions or interpretations to articles. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you. I was thinking to leave a much wider explanation on the ANI report page, but then I saw that it was quite long. However, I do feel that it could be benefitial, and I would like to have it exposed somewhere, so I honestly hope you want mind I post it here. This was my report:

"Regarding the issue itself, I would like to stress out, just for the future record, the following: here on WP there are two kinds of NPOV editors, the ones that edit too positively, and the ones that edit too negatively. Let me please explain myself, and the reason why do I find the second one much more offensive. This user has donne an incredible effort to, beside glorifying his "side", completely carnish the other. The method used is to massively edit all related articles, following by an intense protection of the same, reaching or being very close to the breaking of the WP:OWN policy. This user could favour "his side", but what is being prejuditial here is that beside that, he is preventing any attempt made by other users to "defend" the "other side" in any way, reverting all positive edits to the other side (even if well sourced). Besides that, he takes enormous advantage because the issue has not receved much interess lately, and the few editors mostly without much experience (or non at all) are promtly and severely reverted by this user and ridiculously accused of suckpoppetry (not even one suckpuppet has existed on this lately). Going to the exemples from articles, the "nazyfication" of the Yugoslav monarchic movement and their leader has been massively donne by the user, beside being very clear to all that the movement has been the allied of US, Britain and France troughout most of the war, the exception being the final year and because the other side was being more effective and had the support of the Soviets ending to win the war. So, this user, beside most of the content in the articles being highly NPOV and edited by him, should be quite "happy" in having the monarchists listed in the Axis side, but further, he is blocking any attempt to list them in the "Allied" side as well! Despite being they a "resistance" movement, having been officially allies for most of the time in the war, having receved directives from London, and beside the high condecorations that Mihailovic receved for his efforts in the struggle against the Axis, most even post-mortum, meaning that were unninfluenced by the events in the war. This obviously is making many people to be quite shocked when finding this in WP articles, and most of them end up being roughly reverted and treatened, giving up, wrongly thinking that this must be some "purpously politically" oriented move that WP supports. So, the inclusion of the movement and Mihailovic in the "Axis" section is already hard to accept, but their exclusion from the "Allied" section is very serious disruption. Further, when the user is confronted, he promtly uses provocation, and purpously tries to make all look some "Balkan nationalism" while the only one "Balkanically" behaving here is himself. Instead of appreciating an automatic neutral approach that most of this users had used (including myself) by leaving the movement and their leader in both sides (because the issue is actually controversial), this user reverts all that doesn´t include the nazyfication of them. Even in the mediation itself, the collaboration donne by the movement has been described as occasional and oportunistic, and this clearly users knows this but chooses to ignore it. That occasional and oportunistic collaboration has given him the "right" to include them in the Axis side, but the nature of the movement, the fact that they were the recognised allies for most of the war, and all high condecorations doesn´t allow them to be in the Allied side"? The move request can demonstrate this as well, because he wants to rename a "wide range" article (Yugoslav Front), to the name of the struggle that only "his side" addopted during the war this way preventing any editing of anything alse but his rethoric. Please see the number of times this user has had problems before, the number of reverts that he has donne in that and other related articles, and the nature of them, and everything will be easily clear. I apologise for the long comment but I´m feeling that the situation here is perhaps hard to understand when not involved in it, and some explanation can be helpfull."

I apologise for leaving this entire explanation here, but I am having much trouble of dealing with this behavior, and it has been a serios problem in all related articles because is making many users just give up on editing on this, and that ends up being very prejuditial, and leaves all this articles with only one POV rethoric. FkpCascais (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the link to the mediation that was provided by Nuujinn (another participant in the mediation, in direktor´s side), it would be good to say that the link you had has zero arguments to "my side" (because I touth, and still think, that page was not for argumentation) and all the other for the "other" side. Here is the actual mediation dispute: [14]. FkpCascais (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not holding a brief for either side but I suspect the situation may be too complicated to simply put the Chetniks and Mikhailovic in just one list, whichever it is.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I haven´t noteced the message you left me here, and if it was before my edit on the article, please forgive me because I didn´t knew about it until now.

I already left a message on the talk page on the article where I expressed my full agreement on having a 3 side infobox. That was the ideal solution from the beggining, and something I allways defended for this situation. I allways defended that it was a 3-side conflict and that the simplification made by direktor and his insistence in including them in the Axis side was simply wrong. I didn´t knew about this possibility (I didn´t knew how to do a 3 side infobox, or if it was going to be accepted) and I already left further suggestions on how he could improve it, on the articles talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Fainites, since Fkp seems intent on editing the article (and you may rest assured the edits will undoubtedly be disputed), I would like to repeat my request that the article be restored and protected for the time being until the RM is concluded. Would you consider this? The article is only stable at this time due to good will on my part. I admit I strognly feel that neither should good will be exploited, nor edit-warring be rewarded thusly as a means of pushing through changes in an article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise to intervene here, but I really need to stress out my surprise to this request since I am an editor here on en.wiki well known for my extreme NPOV approach on Balkan related articles with a good collaboration with editors from all nationalities, not only from that region, but from the entire world. The only one oposing me has allways been direktor, and it was only because of him that I had a few blocks here. Anyway, I also find it strange because, and sorry for saying this, but most of my edits end up quite well accepted and usually considered highly fair by most users. I could even bet that the only reverts I have in total on en.wiki are almost all done by direktor (or alasdairgreen, an editor with close relation with direktor). On the other side, I have serious doubts that direktor has even one area where he is not disputed, and I can strongly say that direktor doesn´t have more blocks only because of certain resons I wan´t express here. I apologise once more for this intervention of mine here, but I felt attacked by direktors unfair arguments here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise to expose the issue here, but I need admin advice. Following your guidance, I made 3 proposals on how to make the infobox more correct. My first question is if you don´t mind my approach and possibly support me on this at least to put it on vote. The second question has to do with the ignorance I´m receving regarding my proposals (participants are present but ignoring the vote and distracting with other, not so urgent issues), and I am suspecting that the ignoring of them is done on bad-faith. I´m only asking for a simple yes or no answer for each and a reasoning for the oposition, if existing. Could you please support me on this by asking the intervenients to at least respect my efforts and answer to me? FkpCascais (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

People have answered, though not in a yes/no format. I think it's pretty obvious Direktor does not agree and WF quite likes it as it is so he is not agreeing either. The approach of making a proposal and asking for agreement or disagreement on each element is a reasonable approach. However, it is not going to be quick. You are all still in mediation and there is no agreement as far as I can see on the extent of Chetnik collaboration, or even on whether they were more than merely nominally Allies. Voting as such can be problematic on topics where there is a history of socking.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The answers didn´t provided any reasonable oposition to the proposals and were rather unfocused and vague. I apologise but I find all but fair to be ignored. If they don´t have arguments to oppose them, than the proposed changes should be accepted. Lets not forget that direktors oposition was promptly accepted, and I am not asking to have my changes accepted, but simply discussed if oposed (impossible to be more fair that this). FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Fainites, I just saw now that we had a missunderstanding on the articles talk page. It was after your 6th comment on "Chetniks-Allies?!" section. You started by saying that you had not added anything into the infobox as your suggestion, and you ended up saying that you were having the idea that I was going to, citing you, "struggle to persuade other editors that the Chetniks did not collaborate with Italians, then Germans (Axis powers) against the Partisans. Is the mediation going to resolve this?". I started my next comment with "Of couse,..." answring to your initial part, that you were not rsponsable for the content, but the way it was, you probably got the idea that I said that I was going to deny collaboration! No! Fainites, I said several times that I am not deniying collaboration, but from what we saw in the mediation, the collaboration was only active with the Italians (and specially because they fought the Croats in Dalmatia, that were German allies, just as Italians, what a mess, I know...) and that all the sources direktor menaged to present as demonstration of collaboration with Germans was a number of meating between officials (from where we can even see the animosity between them) and that the only Chetniks that effectively collaborated with the Germans were actually the rebel Chetniks of Kosta Pecanac. Sorry to bother you with this, but seing that you read the current articles, plus this, I understand now the feeling that I may be biased that you probably ended up having. I hope you understood the difference now. Also, Fainites, I understand that you obviously have some doubts when I tell you that direktor editing is really very biased, but please do an exercise and see any of this articles in a state prior to direktors editing. I wasn´t here back then, and I asure you (because recently I saw many of the old versions) that they are much more objective than the current ones. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please give me credit and when you find yourself with time do this exercise and read these articles, as well (don´t warry, these are shorter and much older), and just make a comparison to the current one, and make your own conclusions.

• This was the Chetniks article before any direktors intervention: [15]
• This is Yugoslav Front just before first direktors edit: [16]
• And this one Draža Mihailović also just before first direktors edit: [17].

I am not saying this articles are 100% right (I haven´t analised them at all), but I can assure you they are more close to NPOV than the current ones. Please check all this and other versions from that period so you can be sure I am not lieying or cheating you in any way. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion at Yugoslav Front

FYI, the idea of renaming/returning the article to Yugoslavia in World War II has been presented as a third option at the the move discussion for Yugoslav Front.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on GiovBag's talk page

Concerning my comment on GiovBag's talk page, I sustain my thinking on the matter. If I have violated some WP's policy, do what you consider it is proper to do in such a case. On the vandalism on both his user and talk pages, I think it is quite inadeccuate but I don't know who might have done it. He probably annoyed someone else with his edits in some of the articles on White people.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Korea International School

Regarding your revdel on that article, the single revdel was not enough as the name was not removed until later edits. You need to revdel all edits up to the point where the content was removed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Faintes, I think that after a year of inane nonsense its high time someone finally explained to fkp that his own personal disagreement is not alone something that should influence discussions. This absurdity has to come to an end sometime. The way the ridiculous, year-long mediation has been (mis)handled is this: unless both sides agree, we can't move on. This unbelievable method has enabled Fkp to simply ignore any and all sources - by simply disagreeing :). The whole thing should have been over after a week. A metric TON of sources stands now listed in the mediation describing in full the MASSIVE extent of the Serbian Chetnik collaboration - yet a couple of Serbian users have been (amazingly) allowed to essentially make a mockery of WP:V and ignore sources at will. The stupidity behind this is staggering, and is the primary reason for my short fuse on this talkpage. Instead of determining the WP:NPOV on the basis of actual sources, the inane personal views of involved users were taken into account.

To put it simply: if the sources say the chetniks collaborated - the Chetniks collaborated. Call me arrogant, but my powers of diplomacy have long been expended in this matter: Fkp is dead wrong, I am right. He "personally disagrees" with the sources, he "refuses to agree"? All I can do is play a sombre tune for him on the world's smallest violin. :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Article protection

Hope I'm not nagging, but if you'll notice the article has not only been sporting the sock's version all this time, but is also continuously being edited by the SPA. Now, while I'm sure the SPA could not care less about a block or 3RR (those being the benefits of sockpuppeteering), this should not be used as a tool for pushing edits through. I could edit war now, and of course get blocked, if that's what it will take to protect the article, but I'm kind of hoping that won't be necessary to help you enforce an end to edit-pushing and restore the sourced version. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have protected the article for a week and blocked him for a week. As for him being a sock, if you think you know who's sock it is, make an SPI. You may well be right but SPA does not of itself equal sock. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be a couple of guys... Socks generally tremble at the sight of my SPIs (I'm rather proud of my sockhunting record :)), but I'm currently not by my pc and it's quite a task copy-pasting SPI diffs on the iPhone. I'll do it when i get back and if he's still editing. Notice he didn't even deny he was a sock, my SPI sense is tingling... ^_^ --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, the inter-wiki links you restored are wrong and they were purpously done on behalve of direktor just to demonstrate a point and to support the move request. FkpCascais (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Direktor, he never deniyed he was a sock because probably he doesn´t even know what that is. Want to bet how he isn´t? And, when was the last sock that ever appeared on these articles? Was it ever from a Serbian user? FkpCascais (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Fainites, how was that user blocked for a week because he reverted direktor, that was actually the one that reverted several editors, non of them actually edit-warring? Fainites, you already wrongly reverted me once, now you protected wrong information insisted only by direktor. Please explain yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A) I wasn't interested in the inter-wiki links. I was interested in stopping the edit war about which column the Chetniks go in. I arrived at this page because of this edit war and stopped it. I reverted you because you changed it again. I reverted the other user because he changed it again. I also blocked him as the very point he was changing is the very point being discussed on the talkpage, which he very well knew.

B) It is not about the "right" or "wrong" version. When an edit war is stopped and the page protected it is protected at that version. My reverts have been to revert it to the version I originally protected - otherwise edit- warriors are "rewarded" for edit warring. Whether it is the right or wrong version is irrelevent. Consensus has to be reached on the talkpage!

C) As you have no doubt appreciated, I am trying to avoid being involved in actual content. I am merely keeping the peace and suggesting solutions to the difficulty. The content is for involved editors to reach consensus on based on the best available sources. No doubt the issues have been discussed ad nauseum in mediation already so they are not new. No doubt you are all also very familiar with each other's sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But loking to articles edit history, the only edits that User:Слободни умјетник did were these two: first Слободни умјетник edit where he did not edited anything regarding the infobox just correcting the Serbian naming of the article, and the second where he reverted direktors reverting. Direktor was actually the one that begin edit warring again by reverting all other users in this edit and he subsequently reverts again! Basically, and in retrospective, direktor inserts many doubtfull and disputed edits in the article, including purpously removing the right inter-wiki links just to make a point and gain advantage in the move request, then edit-wars all users that try to correct it this way demanding his edits to stay in place due to "pre-edit war state" and having his version on the article during an non-ending discussion on the talk page (note that he escapes to directly answer questions so the dispute can be solved). Now, who is the one getting benefit from edit warring now? Certainly not me, neither the editor that you blocked for one week because he reverted the person who reverted several users and edit-wars constantly on article. If User:Слободни умјетник was blocked for once revrting direktor´s reverting of several users, than direktor has even more resons to be blocked because he reverted several users, and he did it twice. We have to be consistent with this kind of actions so no side ends up being favoured by admin actions. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And beside edit-warring, direktor has also been CANVASSING here: talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think I got it wrong - but I may be wrong. We are only human. From my perspective, Direktor stopped edit warring and apologised. You also appeared at ANI expressing a willingness to talk. The other user started and continued the edit war. I protected it at the version it happened to be at then. That is the version the infobox is at now. I am not intending to favour one "side", but it is almost invariably the case that when an article is protected it is protected at one "sides" version and the other side feels aggrieved. I am aware of this.

On another point, although it is obvious that there is never going to be agreement about the Chetniks, I have been reading the mediation and have noted the sources produced by Direktor and others. What I have mnissed is your sources. Can you show me where these are set out please? Apologies if I missed them. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I exposed to you a series of questions. Can you please be more specific? Where did User:Слободни умјетник edit-warred exactly? FkpCascais (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

here, here, here, here. Then you and Direktor had a go. Then here. Now you may say - everyone was edit warring. But the policy is WP:BRD. That's Bold (C's first edit), Revert (that's Direktor) Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. Direktor was reverting to the original. You and Direktor stopped edit warring and started discussing. C then made the same change right in the middle of the discussion on the talkpage. If you have a complaint - take me to ANI.

I would also like to be shown where you have set out your sources please. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To take you to ANI I need to clarify things here first, and I am giving you a chance to rectify you eventual error. When I asked you to be clear regarding User:Слободни умјетник´s edit-warring you responded me by including all his reverts on that article, which includes four reverts he made until 8th January and for which he has been blocked by you already on that day. Now, as all we know, nobody can be blocked twice for same reasons, and I knew that, so that is why I asked you which exact edit-warring was the one that made him being awarded with another (this time much heavier, one week) block? The last one? P.S.: We are talking about the sources on articles talk page, so please leave this conversation free of article content subject, so we don´t unecessarily double the same conversation. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fkp - he made the same edit to the infobox, having already been blocked once for edit warring. Right in the middle of the ongoing discussion! Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he reverted direktor´s reverting of several users without discussion. Then, and by your words, direktor is the one that "edited the infobox" by making the previous edit (the one that Слободни умјетник reverted). FkpCascais (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox or the re-directs (another ongoing argument situation in which I am not involved - partly because I don't speak any of the languages). The Chetniks were in the Axis list with nominally allied 1941-3 after them for a long time before C posted this. That is Bold. DIREKTOR reverted. The C reverted back again. And so on and so on. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, the content is not so important here because Direktor reverted many users that made several different edits. User Слободни умјетник rightfully saw that as provocation and restart of an edit-war and reverted him. How do you differenciate the two edits (direktor´s reverting of several users, and Слободни умјетник´s reverting of direktor)? FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the bit where in reverting C, DIREKTOR also reverts some inter-wiki links? They were put back by TheWanderer. Are you saying that in reverting C, DIREKTOR was also conducting a covert edit war against the inter-wiki link edits? C was continuing an edit war for which he had already been blocked.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Fainites, direktor reverted all other users as well. And, no, C didn´t edit-warred this time, he only reverted direktor, who actually started edit-warring again, just as he continuosly does in other related articles, as here where he even ignores a recomendation of yours, and names a user "sock" knowing that he can´t do it until confirming it. FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since others may be exhausted, I'll point it out for you yet again: 1) he re-introduced his edits, 2) I reverted him, 3) he reverted me - thus starting an edit war to push his edits. I cannot concieve that you find this too "complex", but I do find it quite insulting that you think others do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

He did not introduced his edits. Please Fainites respond to me, I´m not talking to direktor. FkpCascais (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to you Fkp. Please provide diffs of what you mean as at the moment I am not getting it. C started the process by adding the Chetniks into the Allies. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided you many times diffs and other comlains regarding disruptive behavior by direktor, but strangly you never "gett it", but no problem, I will again. Слободни умјетник has donne only 2 edits in the article after the block he receved from you: the first one where he didn´t edited the infobox, but only corrected the Serbian language version in the other languages section, and the second one where he did not edited the infobox, as you conveniently and wrongly want to show, but has just reverted the reverting of several users done by direktor in the previos edit, as seen in the same diff. Anyway, if you consider this two edits worth a one week blocking of the user, how is that you don´t consider worth blocking direktor´s behavior? I´ll number all complains I donne to you regarding direktor: you fogive him all edit warring done on January 8th, as seen in article´s edit history, thus, he was not carefull and he reverted 4 users and one bot in this edit, following another revert (clear edit-warring) just next! Adding to this, an edit war he made on a related template against, again, several other users with this reverting (joining ethnical prejudice comment with it, plus a much more serios phalse acusation of "socking" totaly ignoring your previos advice regarding the sock issue provided by you to him here), followed by more edit-warring. If we join all this to several acusations of ethnical nature provided by direktor on the discussions taking place on Talk:Yugoslav Front that I asked several times to be stoped that you allways ignored, plus clear CANVASSING that he made [18], well, how is that you find direktors behavior forgivable and worth ignoring, while you had used your administrative tools in a severe way against User:Слободни умјетник for a reason I still can´t see? FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with you Fkp. Sorry you feel that way. From my perspective, C was renewing an edit war. Edit wars are when people keep adding/reverting the same thing. That was the chetniks in the info box. As for civility - you and DIREKTOR (and several others) are equally uncivil and accusatory towards each other but then you have all been arguing for a very long time. A certain degree of blunt testiness on both sides is only to be expected. People who edit on topics of hot, nationalist import needs must develop thick skins. Rest assured I shall intervene if it goes beyond what is acceptable.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me the difference between this edit and this one against this one which was the edit you awarded User:Слободни умјетник a week-long block (and correct me if it was not this one, but you said it was). FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The last one are new, controversial, opposed, undiscussed edits, in blatant contradiction with half-a-dozen listed refs, which are being continuously pushed into the article by edit-warring. The first two merely restore the pre-edit war version. You know this full well, Fkp. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking to Fainites. FkpCascais (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are there for all to see. I can't add any more to what I've said already. I blocked him for continuing an edit war when he knew well the issue was being extensively discussed, in detail, on the talkpage following the earlier edit war.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about direktor, right? He begin the edit war again, as seen by diffs, so C was blocked instead of direktor, see? FkpCascais (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather fascinating, isn't it? This thread may serve as a good general example of 1) why noone wants to take the time to put an end to this particularly nasty Balkans nationalist problem, and 2) why my demeanour is so abrasive, and my patience so thoroughly worn. Imagine a year of this... o_O

P.S. Fkp seems to be itching to edit the article. The sock likely could not care less if he gets blocked. I expect the disputed edits will be promptly restored upon the article's un-protection. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Another baseless acusation of socking. Fainites, you are actually providing protection and giving incentive for further disruptive behavior by this user direktor. FkpCascais (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fkp. Now. I have said to DIREKTOR that SPI is the place for sock accusations should he think he knows who it is. But I did not block C for socking but for edit warring. We need to agree on the talkpage about what is going in the infobox before anybody changes it. On the issue of disruptive behaviour - both you and DIREKTOR are actively discussing on the talkpage - all be it a little testily. What I would like to know from you is - do you or do you not agree the Chetniks collaborated extensively and if so, from when. If you do - what do you think of DIREKTORs latest version on the talkpage? I am not pre-judging this. There may be perfectly good reasons to object for all I know. I would like to see what sources you rely on for your answer. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A quick read?

Fainites, I'm assuming here you may be willing to get into this obscure issue independently and a tad more thoroughly. You may get a better understanding of "where I'm coming from". In order to gain some insight into the full extent of Chetnik collaboration (and form an opinion of your own regarding its extent), you may want to read Chapter 7, "Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy" of The Chetniks by Prof. Tomasevich - you can find it here: [19], its in English, and, if I'm not mistaken, its entirety of it is available for free. The chapter deals specifically with the subject of this discussion.
As for Tomasevich, you may note that The Chetniks is the only detailed work of comparable quality focusing exclusively on the (relatively obscure) matter of the Chetniks. His are reliable, peer-reviewed (Stanford) university publications, very detailed, and of very high quality. They are a delight to read to anyone mired in the frightful bog of Balkans history, as they are teeming with primary sources - I feel safe to say that virtually nothing the author states is without direct backing.

I have included this in my talkpage post, but consider this a personal link service. To be perfectly honest, an admin willing to do a quick read into the Chetniks mess would to me feel like winning the lottery. ^_^ I'm thoroughly exhausted trying to reason with these folks, and my patience has been ground wafer-thin (as you may have noticed). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read some of the sources such as Ramet, - though not Tomasovic as yet - including one which sees the Chetniks as the wronged victims of a Partisan misinformation campaign with the British as almost equal baddies and the BBC full of communists. I am however trying to avoid becoming involved in content as that makes me an involved editor and then I am not in a position to use adminly powers to prevent edit warring/block edit warriors and the like. I can see where everybody is coming from. Dealing with incivility and edit-warring is the easy bit though. Dealing with POV pushing and disruption requires a thorough knowledge.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have described my proposal inadequately. What I suggest is that you review whether the sources do indeed support the inclusion of the Chetniks into the Axis column (as was the case in the long-standing infobox). Ramet and other sources do indeed describe the issue in detail, but never nearly as comprehensively as Tomasevich. His work, The Chetniks, and more specifically its Chapter 7, are the main source the infobox relies upon.

To be clear, the current (old) infobox, while accurate as a generalization, admittedly could use some refining (though an infobox by its "nature" could hardly escape generalization). A third column is indeed warranted for the Chetniks in the initial period of the conflict (roughly 1941, 1942), however afterwards they become both dependent on the Axis and subservient to them in entirety (since the Partisans materialize as the more present threat to their leadership's vision of post-War Yugoslavia - one that needs to be eliminated at all costs before the arrival of the Allied front).

In short, I propose a two-part combatants column: 1) three-sided (1941-42); 2) two-sided (1942-45), and I believe that the sources (Tomasevich in particular) support this version. I should very much appreciate your view on whether that is indeed the case.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Aleenf1

I left a sorry and makeup message on Aleenf1's talk page but he responded saying no to collaborating and saying I ruined his reputation. What should I do? Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know, you've been mentioned on ANI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I had provided the notice on the discussion we had, two sections up. FkpCascais (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Could you give me advice on how to deal with a troublesome IP? An anonymous IP on the Croat–Bosniak War article and talkpage continues to deny a university publication as a reliable source and simply reiterates his own opinion on the talk page. He continues to remove referenced information and replaces it with his own POV. I'm wary on how to deal with such situations since I received a block for reverting what I thought was blatant vandalism in a previous incident. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have look. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File

Hi. I did not uploaded that file at commons! This is done by someone else[20]. I am the file placed on sr-wiki and there is a the permission (GNU Free Documentation License) for this file [21].--Свифт (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For this pictures would want to I see a evidence that is the correct license or not![22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]--Свифт (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Be advised Fainites, User:Свифт (who may or may not also be User:Слободни умјетник) is here selecting those images he does not personally approve of. User:Свифт is a Serbian user, a friend of User:FkpCascais, and another proponent of the Chetniks. We have here photos of Partisan troops, Chetnik commanders meeting with German commanders, photos of the Partisan commander Josip Broz Tito, alone and with JFK etc. If I didn't know better (and I don't), I'd say the user is trying to see how much history he can censor :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are the authors of images, where the source and license, what date are made? They are the illegal uploaded!--Свифт (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether the forum can be a source? No! Image Source balkanforum--Свифт (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. It's a good picture of the Chetniks and if it is free to use then good. I asked him about the licence on wiki:sr. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the translation:

• Dear Mr Ilic,

You have permission to download materials from the site looked, specifying the sources. I hope that the right to revise the material means that in this case, we will not remain as a source? Eg. our source is that the Chetniks defeated at the Battle of Neretva. If someone to edit and write that the defeated partisans, should not remain that this is our source.

All the best, editor, Miloslav Samardzic

[Edit] Original message Dear Sirs,

as the editors of Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org), we engaged in the preparation of this talk page. In this encyclopedia accessible to everyone we'd like to incorporate the material from your site.

Your material would be released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later, which was published by the Free Software Foundation (in English GNU Free Documentation License, GNU FDL short, http://sr.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Project: GNU_Free_Documentation_License). In short, under these circumstances, anyone could feel free to download, modify, use and disclose the text and images provided quoting the source / author and to provide electronic versions of the text of the license.

We also invite you to freely use texts of articles from our fund, which is constantly growing and are modified.

If we allow the inclusion of your material as described above, your site will be on our site to be listed as the source. To your site can increase the rating because Wikipedia is one of the most visited Internet sites (and one of those with the most dynamic growth), while its articles are often among the first hits on search engines.} -

Dragan Ilic, Serbia dipl.ing.info, Pozarevac, 32 +381648280315 +381648280315 Drvarska dilich@ptt.yu http://dilich.blogspot.com Skype: DRAGANILICH

Listen Read phoneticallyDictionary - View detailed dictionary Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd still need Ustaše and Italian pics... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like permission. Their anxiety is that they are not quoted as a source once the material is changed. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it necessary that images are verified by the OTRS in situations like this? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Now perhaps someone can contact them and get them to use OTRS. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

• News and notes: Executive Director travels; DMCA takedowns; fellowship clarifications; brief news

• In the news: Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Wikipedia "community"?; brief news

• The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books

• WikiProject report: WikiWarriors

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect

What the hey, I'll try petitioning you directly. Could you pls revert the latest edits by an IP at the Chetniks article and semi-protect it for a short while? A persistent IP user has arrived, altered sourced text without discussion and is attempting to keep his changes in by simply edit-warring. The text in question is a direct representation of the listed references, and has been long-established by user consensus (after gruelling, grinding discussions). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Christ, not this again. I already attempted to explain you what really happened, so I'll repeat: I removed repeated internal links, I changed the layout a lot for better (I mean stuff shuffled around), I removed 1 dead link, and a superflous pic or two, did some copyedit work, I added more info about what kind of Chetniks Bora Đorđević identifies with (he made clear in this interview he's not hating on the other nations). That's all. Okay? No major content changes. A cleanup. The same article, but better. Get it? Also a secret: I did this with a few of "your" other articles, too. Now chill, Jesus. (Seriously, what.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And bah, I just realized I'm now kinda stalking you. Whee, how creepy. Anyway ^ still is true, also I'm f-g good at cleanup job and it's just a fact - Fainites you can go and compare just this article before and after. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just having a look. 94 reverted all the pro-Chetnik material added by Ganderlog and put back the material Ganderlog had removed. Then DIREKTOR reverted 94. I can clearly see what the issue is with Ganderlog. What is the issue between you two? (Apart from an edit war and accusing each other of vandalism I mean).Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hey there Fainites. First off, thanks for dealing with User1389 over at the ANI report. Unfortunately as you've already noticed there have been a string of recent IP address "users"... probably User1389 judging from the edits, reverting the same content. Assuming User1389 continues their disruptive ways after their block is over, what other course of action can be taken? Frankly I can't keep up nor do I want to engage in an edit war with anonymous IP addresses over the same 4 (1,2,3,4) articles over and over. Buttons (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't tried the heraldry project yet, but probably will ultimately. The Serbian flag\'s topic is laden with issues more so than just the current one. At the moment however, the problem isn't so much the source so much as its interpreation. FOTW is a pretty reliable soure as far as websites go and as I mentioned before User1389 used it himself (albeit wrongfully interpreted). I don't know if he is doing so accidentally or intentionally and I can't know because they wont talk about it. Therein lies the dilemma as well as the general lack of interest from other editors. Buttons (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I quite understand why people want to run a mile from nationalist disputes. If you think this is bad - you should see the British Isles naming dispute. It even has it's own article. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm cracking up..

Every months there's another one... If someone wants to preserve what's left of these Chetnik-related articles, he's supposed to engage in these nonsense discussions and repeat the same basic stuff over and over and over again. They're gonna lock me up.. I'm gonna end up like Nicholson in The Shining, writing on my typewriter.. scholarly sources, scholarly sources, no links, no links, scholarly, published, no OR, no links, scholarly.... xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now d'you see what I meant when I said there's one every month. And if I didn't try to do something we'd have, oh just for example, two FORKS on the same thing. And they'd probably stay on for months. BalkansWiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What kind of insult is that, DIREKTOR? Is term "Chetnik-related" somehow your description of "Serb"? And if you refer to me as to "one", I have to remind you that I came to Wikipedia long before you and that you was the one who changed name of article about WW2 Serbia without consensus with anybody. You behave like you believe that you own that article. As for sources, you did not presented a single source that could support your claims or your actions. PANONIAN 20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually PANONIAN, when DIREKTOR posted this 12 days ago he was talking about the actual Chetniks article where there was an argument on the talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know that. "Chetniks" is a typical Croatian nationalistic insulting name for Serbs in general, so it is hard to distinguish what was meant by that term if it is used by someone from Croatia. PANONIAN 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks PANONIAN. I have no personal involvment or knowledge of all this. I just try and read what sources I can and keep the peace a bit! Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in this. In fact, I would ask you for advice how to proceed with this issue - I do not want to be involved in revert warring with user DIREKTOR, but he clearly behave unreasonable and his claims are completely unsourced. He claims that these sources are confirming that "Nedic regime" was a name for puppet state. I examined these sources and it is clear that these sources are not using that name to refer to the state, but only to regime that ruled over that state. Please examine these sources by yourself and tell me is there any basis for conclusion that term "Nedic regime" was used as a designation for state? DIREKTOR either does not understand these sources either pushing his personal POV, attempting to twist history of Serbia from that time period. Also, he firstly supported proposal for compromise name "Nedić's Serbia" and then opposed it after only two days. I really do not know how to have reasonable discussion with somebody who behaving like this. So, how this problem can be solved by your opinion? PANONIAN 08:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to reply before. Been a bit busy. Looks like your idea of a 3PO helped. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Wikipedia controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you okay?

Are you okay, Fainites? After weeks of your responding within hours to everything I wrote on the Talk page of Attachment theory and now four whole days have passed...!
I have found on p. 244 of Bowlby's Attachment a summary of what he was saying earlier in the book in which he includes crying and calling in attachment behavior. (see AT Talk page).

After puzzling over these last 2 months I've realized that systems theory--what JB called "control" systems theory--is what's missing from most of the secondary sources. (the index makes clear he is talking about feedback as a form of control). Explaining systems theory is a major problem--Bowlby dedicated over 2/5 of the book to it and Gregory Bateson spent many more years than Bowlby in trying to define systems theory/cybernetics. But it's hard to translate nonlinear thinking into linear language. It's an entirely different way of seeing and analyzing. As a nonlinear cross-disciplinary thinker myself I've seen up close the difficulties all my life. (So I wasn't misunderstanding what Bowlby was saying--I was hearing more of what he way saying).

Systems thinking can be compared to a tennis match--one doesn't watch just one player, but watches the ball and how the two players interact with it.
That's one reason why Bowlby goes back and forth between humans and animals--he's comparing similarities AND differences, drawing parallels and differentiating.

In systems theory--

• One doesn't define the child as the sole seeker of proximity. Both the infant and the PAF (primary attachment figure) maintain proximity.
• The infant is a subsystem, the PAF is a subsystem and the two interacting together are the whole system (or metasystem). Infant attachment and adult caregiving are reciprocal parts of a larger attachment behavioral system.
• The infant's attachment behavior system is ready to be activated at birth. (p. 265) Bowlby describes in various places in the book how this system develops (see for eg. pp. 145-147).Margaret9mary (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks for asking. Just been a bit busy though I usual fiddle with Wiki most days as it makes a change from working. I always think that's one of the interesting things about Bowlby - the cross-disciplinary bit. He was a pioneer in so many ways. George and Solomon quietly point out that the main research in the 80s and 90s was around representations rather than systems - which they did their best to correct! They complain that the way in which the infants behavioural systems (attachment, exploration, affiliation) interact with each other and with the caregivers system are "as yet largely unexplored". The section in the article on this is a bit thin. They cite the caregiving system's behaviours as including retrieval, maintaining proximity, carrying, following, signalling, calling , looking, smiling etc etc. The childs attachment system is terminated by proximity or contact when the caregiver responds to the needs in a satisfactory manner. They propose the caregivers system is terminated in a similar manner. George and Solomon would certainly be a suitable secondary source on interaction between the systems. There is also the issue of competing systems of course. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Handbook of Attachment

The Handbook on Attachment has finally arrived. I took a first look at articles, etc. and then looked in the index. Under "systems theory" 4 pages are listed; under "feedback"--nothing; under "cybernetics"--nothing. So there you have it--the scientific paradigm Bowlby considered central to understanding Attachment has been left out of the Handbook.
I've waited for years and seen how difficult it is for people to understand--and to define--systems theory. It's because it is a paradigm that is automatically omitted by the paradigm of classical science. See this article--Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Bale 1995 (connect on the Bateson page under Further Reading which explains the difficulty(see the first 8 pages). But then I checked the SUNY website and printed out 3 articles--Becoming Attached by Robert Karen; When Strangers Meet: J. Bowlby and H Harlow on Attachment Behavior; Bowlby's 1958 article The Nature of the Child's Tie to His Motherand a pamphlet written by Bowlby in 1958--Can I Leave My Baby?. Lots of interesting things found--in 1958 JB comments that fathers can care for a child perfectly well, and that if you leave a baby with a nanny the nanny "will be the real mother-figure"Margaret9mary (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep! The father bit I had to argue for ages on the Maternal deprivation article with this chap who insisted Bowlby said it was natural mothers only. (And all part of a conspiracy to deprive men of their rights - women being all powerful world rulers of course). What did you think of the George and Solomon chapter? Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

Re: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2

In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.

I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance.

This makes me sad. I didn't understand.--Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

• News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news

• In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news

• Versailles: Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

• WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

?

This is kindá related to the subjects we have been dealing with. Would you mind if I ask you for advice? FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Fainites. Now, today we have a new situation regarding this same issue. I mean, this is really childish, speacially after this. He´s really abusing and playing with the patience of all of us. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean in Chetniks talk page comment, however, regarding the issue I asked you here, nothing has been donne despite all evidence. The user direktor is being clearly disruptive, constantly edit-warring, and my good-faith and restraining from going into this edit-war are prooving to be fruitless. You have shown much patience and provided much tolerance towards direktor and that has been quite negative for me, being me the one on the "loosing side" for no reason. That shouldn´t be the case. FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

• News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

• In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

• Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

• WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

• Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually moved DIREKTOR's post up since he was addressing PANONIAN and not Fkp's down. I didn't think people would actually complain over something so miniscule as moving a post. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that gets to people sometimes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

a request for assistance

Hello - regarding the closed discussion on Noticeboards, it appears to be continuing past the closure. I posted a reply right after it was closed and before I noticed it and would be happy to delete it and, obviously, refrain from further posting since the discussion has been closed. However, Bugs is now posting multiple comments about me that are patently not true (e.g. "posting a userbox threatening to report other editors that he considers to be anti-Gadaffi") and I feel compelled to defend myself against since they will become part of the permanent record. I don't even know what to request at this point. I'm at a loss at what to do about Bugs. My participation in Wikipedia seems to attract him through some force of compulsion despite the fact I never initiate interaction with him. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Reminder

Did you send me an e-mail? If so, thanks for the reminder. Question--can I delete something I wrote on another person's user page? It would take me ages to find the answer to that.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

reminder

Did you send me an email? If so, thanks for the reminder. Can I delete something I've posted on another person's user talk? I don't know where to find out the answer to that.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - that was my e-mail. You can delete something you've written but it will still show up in the record if anybody looks. If you have a good reason for wanting to remove it permanently it can be "oversighted", ie removed permananetly. This is usually for things like disclosing personal information about people or libellous remarks or that kind of thing. You shouldn't delete things people have already replied to generally though. You can e-mail me and tell me what the problem is and I'll have a look. Cheers. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it this ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't my December 29 comment, written before I became acquainted with Editing conflicts. The issue was that Jean Mercer wanted to send me her article, Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory (which went a long way toward clarifying your statement that Attachment theory has changed). Jean asked for my e-mail address which I left on her talk page. I deleted it but don't know anything about oversighting..Margaret9mary (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

• In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

• Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Freecycle

Thanks for the tip. Rodhullandemu 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem

• Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news

• Editcountitis: Report on Editcountitis. 27% of all edits have been done by just 4,000 editors

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

• News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

• In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

• Features and admins: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

• Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

LoL, I tend to agree agree with this fella. Restore the pre-edit-war version? You know I'm still pretty confused as to what exactly Tim's complaint is. To top it all off I told the guy I don't mind any changes.. I think he's just angry the whole vote he organized didn't work out the way he planned and the article simply remained the way it was. Wasted effort. I can relate. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite liked the lots of photos box. It's tempting to say - take it in turns to pick a photo - but I suppose that's not in accordance with the policies. Anyway - page protection does not validate any particular version. It's only to stop edit-warring and the general rule is - you protect whatever version is there at the point at which you decide to protect - known as the m:The Wrong Version.Fainites ^barleyscribs

You have no idea how much I hate WP:WRONGVERSION. I despise it with a passion. I mean, fine, no version is the "right version", but protecting the page so that it displays the new contested edits is a way of validating edit-warring as a means of pushing new edits.

If I had it my way, Wikipedia would institute a simple anti-edit-warring system (and let's face it, its a plague):

• First establish a time limit after which an edit, any edit, can be considered to have been "accepted" or "long-standing".
• In case a new edit is seriously disputed, a revert should be the recommended course of action. A discussion should then be started to determine user consensus (based on sources). (Essentially WP:BRD as official policy.)
• If an edit-war erupts, an admin should simply protect the article on the "long-standing" version until some kind of consensus is reached. Additionally, the user who started the edit war should be warned, then blocked, while the guy who was restoring the "long-standing version" should not be blocked. Teh edit that starts the edit war is the second introduction of new edits (i.e. when a user introduces his new edits in spite of being reverted). "It takes two to edit-war" is another bull#%&t phrase. Teh two people edit-warring are NOT the "same": one is introducing new edits (99% of cases without consensus), while the other is restoring the old version.

Its what I would recommend based on the experience of years of constant conflict. What does a guy think when he's edit-warring? He thinks "an admin will be here soon, I have to revert as fast as possible to make sure my version is the one he protects". This is how things are. And no, I'm not saying all this so you would restore the infobox, I'd just like to hear an admins opinion of The System. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In broad terms I agree. I do know how infuriating it is when you have a gang of POV pushing sockpuppets who "vote" for consensus and revert in rotation, and then you all get slapped on the wrist and ticked off by some passing admin who knows nothing and cares less. That's what happened to me on all the attachment articles. However, the difficulty is - it requires a great deal more time and research and knowledge than you generally have to start trying to protect the right or even established version, which also exposes the admin to the accusation of partiality or bias. I twice protected what happened to be your version, by chance, on Balkan pages and was accordingly accused of bias by the "other side". It's not as easy as you might think to work out what the established version is when it is not an area in which you have been involved in editing. And anyway the established version might be complete tosh - maintained there by POV pushers. I also agree that "it takes two to edit war" does not seem fair when applied as between someone trying to discuss and maintain a sourced, established version and someone just reverting. Groups of POV pushers and socks will try and tempt editors into 3RR. You will see that not everyone gets blocked for 3RR all the time. My only solution is to try and watch over particular areas so that I get an understanding of the subject and the issues.

The other useful policy is BRD. You have an established version. Someone boldly changes it (E1). An established contributor reverts(E2). Then you discuss. The difficulty with this is the maths. E1 wrongly changes it again without discussing. E2, understandable miffed, reverts again and says please discuss. E1 reverts again. E2 reverts again. At this point, E2 is up to 3 reverts. E1 is not. E1 - who is more in the wrong, will only be up to 3 reverts at his next revert. E1 reverts so they are both on 3RR. At this point, E1 would argue that it would be wrong to block E1 for 3RR, but not E2 who reached 3RR first. On the surface though, the problem is caused by E1 changing an established version and not discussing. However, lets suppose the "established version" is arrant nonsense, protected by edit warriors for years and E1 is adding basic, necessary well sourced information. No admin can always get to the bottom of this on the spot. I suppose that is the thinking behind the strict liability approach to 3RR. Or indeed 8RR as the case may be.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

• News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

• In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news

• WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify

• Features and admins: Featured list milestone

• Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dalmatia

Congradulations. With that post on Talk:Fausto Veranzio you just officially entered the old abandoned battlefield of Dalmatia. Where ghosts of edit-wars past still haunt the living.. A strange, upside-down place, where you are bound to see me called a "Croatian nationalist" :). No, Dalmatia is not a dog, its actually a small region of Croatia (yes that's right, its a small region of a tiny country :)).
In all seriousness, you're seeing the tip of the iceberg there. Dalmatia is a region that was populated by South Slavs since the 8th century AD, the hinterland in particular. However its cities on the Adriatic Sea preserved tehir Roman legacy for some time afterwards. Afterwards the cities were ruled by the Venetian Republic for a long time. In essence what that translates to is a place where the lower classes are Slavic, but the higher classes were Romance by ancestry and were increasingly absorbed by the Slavs. A typical noble from the period speaks Slavic at home but is very fluent in Italian and Latin as well. Now as you can see this is a very fine line. The Slavic argument is that these boys were Slavs since they lived and intermarried in a overwhelmingly Slavic area for hundreds and hundreds of years, while the Italian argument is that they are "Italians by ancestry". Of course, those people are indeed Slavic, are the Monarchs of England Germans then? But the matter is complicated by the fact that these people were known to the outside world by their Italian names (e.g. "Fausto Veranzio"), and that error is only being corrected in scientific usage since WWII. Add to that the fact that, well, Slavic languages are damn near incomprehensible to your average English-speaker :) and you have Italian names out there for people who wrote the first dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian language (Faust Vrančić).
(Incidentally Italy entered WWI on the side of the Allies primarily because the latter had promised them the Slav-poulated region of Dalmatia, they did not get it because of Woodrow Wilson, and the outrage contributed quite a bit to Mussolini's rise to power. Fascist Italy then occupied and annexed Dalmatia during WWII.)

The edit wars and disputes about Dalmatia were.. very bad. We lost a lot of good men there, and PTSD is rampant among the former participants. In the end most of the names are now in Slavic form, and the "Italian side" is indeffed almost to a man. Its been quiet for a long time now, and "Fausto Veranzio" is the only remaining hotspot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh lawks! I supposed it would be like using the old french for early medieval English scholars on the grounds the joint was run by the Normans. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Famous Croats

No, no. Reason why I added this list of persons is to show other users who has the most views, and this could show us who is the more "famous". I didn't propose them to infobox, you can read what I wrote. Second, Mile Budak, he was just an example, we can add Jesus Christ. It was not my attention to extend the discussion. Not at all. DIREKTOR thinks I'm a fascist, but I don't give a damn. I just whant to say that Ivana B.M. should be replaced with more "famous" person, since I think that you are adding her just because of her female organs. That's my point. And as you can see, I agree on every person wich you choose, except her. And my oppinion should be considered.

Second, why I wrote "clean" Croats, this means they are Croats from both sides, nothing to do with "aryanism", just DIREKTOR told me that Malkovich is half French, so I wrote for perosns who's Croatian ethnicity could be disputed, that they are "clean" Croats, from both sides.--Wustenfuchs 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last time: I do NOT think you're a fascist, man! I just think you like them too much for your own good. Judging by your name I'd say you are confusing the Ustaše with the Wehrmacht. I mean, nobody who read about WWII can help but admire the impressive fighting skills of the German army, Rommel, for example, was a great general and a great guy (though von Manstein was a better general :)). But to transfer all that into admiration for the utterly incompetent Ustaše and their cronies, who never won a battle in the entire war, who managed to alienate their own people (outside Herzegovina :)) into joining the Partisans en masse, who's only achievement was to slaughter innocent people by the hundreds of thousands - that is superficial thinking, to say the least. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

NLW

I have to ask, what's your current take on the RM at Yugoslav front? Hopefully I've shown that the term does indeed encompass teh entirety of the conflict. Frankly I can't imagine any part that might hypothetically be considered "separate" somehow. Its a very tangled, intertwined war. Fkp is just looking out for the Chetniks' "interests", its what he does. He's also being deliberately vague in his concerns so as to avoid getting immediately proven wrong. On the one occasion he did specify he was talking about the Chetniks (quelle surprise!), it became evident there appear to be more than 250 sources that discuss Chetnik actions as part of the National Liberation War. He says its "like Mars and the Solar System" (how colourful), but he can't seem to show that "Mars" and the "Solar System" are the same thing.

In light of the fact that NLW is not only the most common, but that there really is no other name for the conflict in scholarly use, how can a move possibly be opposed on the grounds of one (clearly very biased) person's uncorroborated claims? Can one really just "proclaim" a title invalid? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as "I still disagree, but don't want to argue with you". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Haven't managed to snaffle much computer access today. I was thinking about it. I don't really have a strong opinion. I can see both sides of the argument and was just trying to clarify it. Certainly it doesn't seem as open and shut to me as it does to you. Anyway, I can't be an involved editor and an admin. The problem is - there is so much repetitive and bad tempered argument on the pages on these issues that keep coming up again and again that I doubt any knowledgeable and interested third parties will want to take part in the debate. That leads to stalemate.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais has an uncanny and incrdibly annoying ability to confuse and cloud even the most straightforward issue. In this he takes advantage of the total obscurity of these discussions. He should not be allowed to do so. All he really does is post some random argument he thinks of himself, repeats it over and over again - and presto presento:

• 1) admins do not want to step in because they're put off by all the empty arguing, and
• 2) because they're unfamiliar with the issue, they simply take the "middle ground" in spite of the fact that Fkp's incessantly repeated theories and fake arguments have absolutely NO support other than his own claim.

For example: can you tell me why exactly the article should not be moved per commonname?

We'll see what happens. If the article does not get moved, I certainly won't sit quiet, and will bring this up on the admin noticeboard. Someone needs to put a stop to this nonsense, because its just getting ridiculous. Do we follow naming policy around here or do we let politically motivated personally-invented claims present themselves as some sort of a vaild "argument" because of the obscurity of the article subject? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Iran-Iraq War

A bit of moderation is needed here...Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Direktor again

It seems Talk:Serbs of Croatia might need some attention. Timbouctou (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Serbian Nazi collaborators

I apologise Fainites, but I need your help. User:PRODUCER is "having fun" by adding the mentioned category and labeling as "Collaborators" a series of biographies that are actually dependent on the outcome of the Mihailovic mediation. The least he could do is respect and wait for the outcome. Can you please help me to stop this rushed "in panic" nazification of several figures. The user should have participated in the mediation, instead of having fun all around editing the same articles. FkpCascais (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That mediation concerns Mihailovic and the Chetniks article not every fucking individual Chetnik article in existence. In reality this has nothing to do with the mediation just Fkp's emotional attachment to this subject and his nonsense reasons ("lets all go back to blind nationalism and write all the worste about eachother." "nazification") used to remove categories that are backed by sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fuckin´", exactly, that describes your neutrality when editing the subject and refering to them. And yes, the article IS related to the mediation. Again, your intervention on the article was about the addition of "collaborator" in the lead and the inclusion of the category. Later, after I confronted you, you edited more. Now, I still don´t see that the article actually allows you to highlight in the lede the "collaborator" neither to include him the nazy category based on Tito trial. You are well known for your nationalistic attachment to articles related to the region. And, to tell you the trouth, I am not attached to the articles, at least not as much as you fuckin´ hate them (did I edited the article, don´t think so). Live and hate, but not here on WP, and go call nazy and talk "fuckin´" someone else, and in the face rather than hidding behind a cp. This is not the place for you to amuse and name nazy who you want and talk obcenities. You´re in a wrong place. FkpCascais (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep "confronting" me I'll be adding more regardless. In fact, I'm planning on expanding on the antisemitism of the Chetniks which you may enjoy. :) Yes, please continue going on and on about how everyone is nationalistic and how you're the epitome of neutrality. You're apparently so emotionally attached to this subject that you feel the need to write about your struggle with helping the Pavelic article and feel the need to bring up your ancestry in the mediation.

"Live and hate, but not here on WP, and go call nazy and talk "fuckin´" someone else, and in the face rather than hidding behind a cp." Wow, words escape me for nonsense like this. With statements coming from participants like this no wonder the mediation is a sham. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don´t see the point of your comment. Yes, I try to be as objective as I can, and for time being I think that I can be proud of most of my edits on wiki, specially the ones on polemic areas such these. Yes, I may feel heated sometimes and tell some personal stuff, but at least I don´t call people nazy´s around and talk obscenities. And yes, Pavelic article can perfectly be used as exemple for the other war leaders from that period in the region. And you are free to write whatever you want, but you need much more for dearing to constantly name nazy´s historical figures. You can make neutral edits, but such hard acusations need to be much more sourced before inserting them. Perhaps you don´t feel ofended for being called nazy, but many people does. And if you don´t have a strong, or better, a group of sources, and some academic agreement on it, you are not doing anything else but insulting. FkpCascais (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Collaborators

No. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav Front

This is getting absurd. Timbouctou (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Block?

Fainites, are you serious? You'll block me? My edits are being WP:STALKED and I am being provoked here. That is a fact. User:Timbouctou can "deny" it all he wants, but its perfectly obvious from his edits. Not that since the discussion on Talk:Croats was successfully concluded, he has followed my contribs to Talk:Yugoslav Front, Talk:Ante Pavelić, and Talk:Serbs of Croatia, strangely opposing everything I support. A simoultaneous involvement in articles where the discussion was either concluded or was going on for days already. In all instances he has continued to insult me at every opportnity "bullshit", "arrogant", "troll", "psychiatry patient", I mean just look at his posts. This is the very definition of WP:STALK.

I am also asking you to please read through his early posts on Talk:Croats. You will notice I had to put up with his insults and abrsasive behavior from the start.

• In his very first recent post there ("Josip Broz Tito" section) he says I'm "blabbering something" in a very abrasive tone [30]. I had not spoken a word to the guy.
• I was frankly very much surprised at such a hostile attitude out of the clear blue sky. The tone of the discussion was civil, there was absolutely no bad blood. This is an excerpt from his second post:

"Btw I love the fact how DIREKTOR thinks that his reasoning somehow trumps the consensus gauged by a poll in which 15 editors voted and commented. I love it how he thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"

• In his third post [31], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
• Fourth post: "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [32]
• Fifth post, "bully", "troll" [33].

This stuff goes on and on.. I invite you to have a quick read and compare personal comments, e.g. "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [34] followed by my post:

"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"

Even when I got blocked because of his uncompromising, hostile attitude, I still remained calm for the most part and was good sprited. And then after I agreed to all his proposed changes and implemented them myself, he accused me of "playing dumb" with his Brlić-Mažuranić photo, and the he "expects" to see it included. I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. I should have simply reported his behavior as soon as it started. Now you are about to treat us "equally".. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)