User talk:Fee Fi Foe Fum

Welcome!thank you for your reply. I'm still having a problem with my second contribution, I will adhere to the 5 pillars. I will again redo it entirely. Can I erase it and start a new 2nd contribution?Roserobert (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fee Fi Foe Fum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! J Milburn 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball AFD=

I personally wouldn't vote to kill the Flintstones pinball game based on the current article. If you can find more info on the Superman pinball game and expand the article to be similar to the Flintstones one I'd gladly considering looking at the AFD again with an open mind.--Torchwood Who? 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must've grabbed the wrong username. I'm also a big fan of cleanups and consolidates, so I hope that there are some good things that can come from this.--Torchwood Who? 17:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment: Holocaust denial and Karl Plagge

Hello, Fee Fi Foe Fum; welcome to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I’ve attempted to address your concerns there, so please have a look. I hope what I’ve written is of use to you. And of course, if you have any further comments, please add them. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on Thompson

I'm not sure if we are at the point for an Rfc on this, but in any case wouldn't it be better at Rfc-biographies than community? Those are the folks who focus on BLP issues. Tvoz |talk 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah - this is at least the third or even fourth time this has been argued, maybe more. Still think rfc-biographies is a better place for it though. Tvoz |talk 18:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - I had removed the repeated rfc tag - you had it in the age difference section where I left it and repeated in the logo section where it didn't belong. You might copy it into the "wording options" section, as there's more discussion of rfc people to look at. Tvoz |talk 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

Please note that the hoax tag should not be used for articles that are openly about fictional topics - unless, of course, it's about a subject that doesn't actually appear in the fiction in question. DS 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Thompson

My protection to this article was administrative in nature, in doing a cleanup of articles that had their protection set to NEVER expire. Other then making it eventually expire, I'm not otherwise involved with this article. The last administrator working on protection for it was User:Jéské Couriano, who can be reached via their talk page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unprotecting it; if you want to get another admin's take on it file an unprotection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I realise it's your right to carry on doing AFDs on eastenders articles, but i'd really appreciate if you would discuss this with us first. We are one of the only soap opera projects trying to clean up these articles with references and OOU persepctive. It takes time to do, but if you look over some of our character articles you will notice that we are getting there slowly. Why have you decided to target eastenders like this? Gung adin ♦ 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. We are trying to clean up, but there are only two or three active members and it does take a lot of time. As I understand it, there is no deadline to get articles up to a certain standard. At the moment we have a featured article candidate that we're trying to pass, which is our main focus at the moment. You can see therefore that there are notable characters and we can have well written, well sourced articles. If we had more active members it would be easier but we just don't. ^anemoneI_projectors 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I appreciate that there's a lot of articles that dont comply with policy. Thing is, most of our articles were created before the OOU perspective/sources rule was enforced. We are now struggling to get them to comply with policy, not because we cant find sources (there are loads), but because there are only about 2 editors who are willing to rewrite the articles. It just takes a long time to rewrite in OOU perspective, and most of the editors just add unsourced in-universe stuff, which doesnt help. It's a problem for soap articles in general, but it is our goal to make them better (similar to this or this). Other soap projects are not even trying, and I just wanted to let you know that we are as I realise, based on the large number of unsourced articles, that it may look like we dont care about policy.Gung adin ♦ 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I forgot to say the other day, thankyou for acknowledging the improvement on Kelly Taylor (EastEnders) and withdrawing the AFD. We've come across many editors who continue to try and have pages deleted on AFDs, even after we've proven notability and rewritten them (seemingly because they dislike the topic). So it's nice to see that this wasn't your intention :) Gung adin ♦ 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombabah State Primary School

Hi, I agree entirely with your delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombabah State Primary School as the article, when you saw it, was in a poor way. However, since then it has been completely rewritten to meet the legitimate concerns expressed and now has the multiple sources so it fully meets WP:N. Perhaps you would revisit your recommendation, please? TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod for Double Dare (Kyosho)

Just want to ask, the prod proposal is given to a RC car that wasn't a sales success and coming from a notable brand name, what does a Radio Controlled car has to do to be notable, just saying that as I do remember seeing one of these when at model shops and advertised in RC car magazines at that time (1989). Not to mention if this is given to a (full-sized) car article, people would be scrapping over this argument. For this time being I removed the prod for that reason. Willirennen (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod proposals

Please can you be a bit more careful when tagging articles with the prod template? You tagged one of my articles, Valentine (Delays song), which was fair enough as it didn't include references (although I think it would have been better to just put a 'needs references' tag on there as it was pretty obvious from the text that was there that the article was notable). I then had a look at some of the other edits where you've added the prod template and it seems that you've been fairly indiscriminate - adding where articles do contain vaild references and are almost certainly notable judging by the content. I appreciate that clean ups are needed on Wikipedia and that it must be a pretty thankless task but I really do think that a message on the main contributors talk page and/or a 'needs references' tag is a far better way of going about things, particularly when you aren't an expert in the field. Hope this comment doesn't cause offence and you realise that it was made with the best of intentions Cavie78 (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod for Hard as a Rock (Steve-O album)

You put a proposal for deletion on Hard as a Rock (Steve-O album) because it has "no sources" even though there is clearly a source in the article. And how exactly does it violate WP:CRYSTAL? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bury?

You've piqued my curiosity, what's special about bury? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many place names in Britain end in "bury" which means "hill fort" from back in the stone/bronze/iron age. Check out Cadbury Castle, Somerset and click the coordinates to look at a satellite view. Also cool is Avebury, which has stone monuments older than Stonehenge and a "modern" town inside it, check its satellite view. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. GreenJoe 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it like I see it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Talk:Sarah Palin

I found your recent comment to be entirely unhelpful in furthering the discussion about this article. In the future keep your allegations about the political stripes of other editors to yourself (especially when they are completely unfounded). They hinder the efficient improvement of wikipedia articles. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin again

this edit. I don't understand your grounds for objecting? Regards, Ben

People say many things. But on Wikipedia, we only report what secondary sources say. If no news organizations noticed the statement, we should not include it, even though we have it from the horse's mouth. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case cspanjunkie is a secondary source. The official minutes of the gubernatorial debate would be a better source, but unless you doubt she actually said it you shouldn't have removed the quote, absent any other reason to remove it of course. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia [with care because...]". Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roof knocking

Hi Fee. I saw your comment that "roof knocking" is Israeli propoganda. According to the Daily Telegraph:

“

Hamas radio reported Rayan [Nazir Rayan] had received a phone message from the Israeli armed forces saying they were going to blow up his house but he refused to leave.

”

(emphasis added). Not only that, but according to the International Herald Tribune:

“

Leibovich [the Israeli military spokeswoman] said she could not give details or specify whether Rayyan's family had been warned.

”

So you might want to re-check the factual basis for your claims. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda can be true, read the article on it. Don't ever try to contact or correct me again. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your talk page must comply with WP:CIVIL as well. This encyclopedia is built by the collaboration of editors. Thus, such language has no place here. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]