User talk:Fences and windows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Theranos AfC[edit]

Hi, thanks for your offer. I noticed there have been additional articles about Theranos and they probably meet most editors' notability standard now. Plus, they are mentioned in the Blood test article. I will add one or two references and create the article sometime this week. Please make changes or additions as required. I'll let you know once I've posted it. Thank you so much for your interest and taking the time to contact me. Claudeb (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article is now up at Theranos. I added references to the piece that recently appeared in Wired. I'm sure my article can be improved, though. Thanks! Claudeb (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has already been tagged for reading like an ad. I tried to tweak it a bit, but I would appreciate any help. Claudeb (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Lebombo bone[edit]

"a recent re-analysis of the Border Cave baboon fibula (Fig. 7), which identified four sets of non-sequential markings, is taken to suggest ‘accumulation over time and a notational function’ (d’Errico et al. 2012)""Tracing The Emergence Of Palaeoart In Sub-Saharan Africa" Peter B. Beaumont and Robert G. Bednarik. Hopefully I'll find time to fix the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

James Renner's Blog[edit]

Due to a nasty incident at another article I maintained, I veer clear of "External Links" debates. If someone added back the link to Renner's blog I would not object nor remove it. Jimbonator (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I dread to think what was involved! On reconsideration, Renner's blog is probably too speculative and controversial to be a good EL, considering the sensitivity of the subject matter. Fences&Windows 20:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

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

Orphaned non-free image File:The Ropes logo.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, someone found a CC-BY photo on their Flickr to use instead of their logo. Fences&Windows 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Story of Marie and Julien[edit]

Hi, I used some of your contributions in The Story of Marie and Julien in the article on Jacques Rivette. However I just wanted to let you know that some of the links are either dead or require a login to access. I'd recommend going back over the article and checking or fixing the citations. Its a really great article. Also, I'm in the process of gathering notes from Mary Wiles' book on Rivette. Would you be interested in any raw notes on Marie and Julien? I will also eventually take notes from the Morrey/Smith book.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to give you my notes. Some of them may not interest you and are intended for other articles, but I just included everything. Use or delete if you want:


  • Wiles, Mary (2012). Jacques Rivette (Contemporary Film Directors). Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07834-7. 

Pages: 120

  • Rivette disappeared from set of Marie and Julien after three days of shooting.
  • Marguerite Duras offered to finish film, but the film’s actors refused to continue without Rivette.
  • Mary Wiles: "Rivette’s interest in magic and fantasy as sources of female empowerment resurfaces in recent films from its source in the supernatural feminine cosmology of Les filles de feu and also in the comedy high jinx of Céline and Julie."
  • In 1975 there was only ever a "skeleton script"- written by Claire Denis, Gregorio and Marilù Parolini (Rivette's former wife).
  • Added Madam X character- not in original script.
  • 2003 film lacks the improvisational musical score that tied the first two films together.


  • Opening tracking shot of Julien alone- similar to opening scene in Céline and Julie.


  • Opening dream sequence inspired by the opening dream sequence in Luis Buñuel's Belle de jour.
  • Marie is a revenante, Rivette said she is one of "those persons who for one reason or another did not succeed in crossing – be it the river, path, tree, hill – the frontier that separates our world of the living and the world of the dead, which lies in the direction of Noroît (the northwest), and consequently are condemned to passing certain tests that will allow them to leave this state, which is quite uncomfortable, between two worlds."


  • Montelban- where Estelle returned to- similar sounding to Montfermeil in Gang of Four.
  • Madame X like the goddess of the moon, Marie like the goddess of the sun.


  • Marie in Estelle’s clothes- similar to scene in Vertigo.
  • Marie recites a Gaelic incantation- Rivette said it is the geis, a magical incantation derived from Celtic druidism
  • Jean Markale- historian- wrote about when the role of women is blossoming it corresponds with renaissance of Celtic thought- Courtly period- 12th/13th century


  • Marie covering face to create invisibility mask- from celtic tradition- was in the original script. Rivette and Denis could not remember its meaning, so they reinvented its use in the film.

--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in about this, and sorry for the delay in replying. I'd not worry too much about the sources, they were verified at the time. If you let me know the deadlinks or mark them on the article, I may be able to find archived versions. I already did that for reference 9.
For the new material, feel free to work it in, as I may take a while to revisit this. Fences&Windows 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ferguson Left[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Ferguson Left, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lady's Well[edit]

Thank-you for your helpful comments. I have tried to attended make some of the corrections that you suggest. Let me know what you think. I will have another look at the main 'Lands of ..' article in due course.

As far as I can see the 'Copyright' violation you have correctly brought to my attention dates from around 2008 - a quick look at my recent edits seems to show no violations since I was made aware of the full extent of copyright. When I was notified in 2013 of such violations I offered to go back and correct them and was told that this was not for me to undertake - at least that's how I understood it. I have as far as I am aware been very careful since 2013. If you can show otherwise then please notify me. If you are wrong and acted in haste then please expunge your accusation from the record. Thanks again, Roger. Rosser Gruffydd 10:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Intertranswiki[edit]

Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Leila Deen[edit]

Leila Deen as an article should never have been expanded in any depth. It was a WP:1E in the year 2009, about a person who otherwise has no notability. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously our opinions differ on that. She was already known for other activism prior to that 2009 incident including being a finalist for an award, and since then has been a senior campaigner with Greenpeace. The article didn't reflect that more recent activism, so I have updated it and restored it from the redirect. You were right that this bio needed attention. Fences&Windows 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Leila Deen[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Leila Deen —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Urquhartnite (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Leila Deen. The discussion is about the topic Leila Deen. Thank you. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alistair MacDonald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars[edit]

Thanks for messaging me. To address your concerns, I found the version you somewhat reset the article to less neutral and more POV. For example when you restored the edit that claims the Denver Post thinks ST is better than SW, it is really very misleading when in fact it was the opinion of one writer for the Denver post who felt this way. When I cited editors from say The New York times, I specified their names and not the news outlets they write for, because it would be misleading to make people think it represented the entire media outlets opinions.

Another issue I have is that you changed the title of the section "Notable commentaries favoring one franchise over one another" to "Critique" because that section currently contains only pro-Trek commentaries which is equally misleading and completely unacceptable by Wiki standards of NPOV. These pro-Trek arguments have also been inserted into the differences section, when the version I had put it them in were simply factual differences and did not contain any opinionated commentaries.

I also added a book source to cite the philosophical messages of Star Wars prior to your second revert which appears to be removed. Your concern about the styling is less of a problem to me. I am okay with removing the point forms in the paragraphs provided they separate ST and SW, which has mostly been done.

As for criticism of both franchises, I must tell you that I refurbished the article in 2014 and made edits and additions over a span of months. This means I still intended to add comparative criticism to both franchises, I just need the time. I also think a criticism section balances out the opening section of the two franchises which claims to provide employment and entertainment to millions of people (not that I disagree) but if positive statements should be put in, so should negative ones be in, which I again plan to add.

I also think you should not have reverted the article to your version without prior discussion or at least informing me and WP:OWN would equally apply here, in addition to WP:NPOV. I am also concerned that it came up at a time when I am not very active on Wiki and undergoing lifeguard training, in fact my examination will be on Saturday.

I'll see what I can do to resolve this, but it will take time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdominizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Men's Health (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Movement[edit]

Thank you for your comments on this article. I've restored the deleted comments on the talk page (it seemed best) and had a go at fixing the merge/notability tags scattered around. If we mayn't be merging these pages I'll post a fleshed-out counter-proposal, but I'll need to leave it 'til tomorrow, now. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Block undone[edit]

I've undone your block of Sitush, on the assumption that there must have been some mistake. The user had not repeated any personal attack (or indeed edited the page in question again) after being warned. Nothing he said to you was "personal", including the stuff you "redacted". (User talkpages don't actually need to be brought to a condition of perfect absence of swear words.) Surely no admin would block merely over insufficient deference versus themselves? I actually hope few admins block over personal attacks directed at themselves, either, but anyway, he didn't attack you. This was a strange block. Bishonen | talk 04:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

  • A poor block indeed. Thank you for undoing it, Bishonen. --John (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, John. FW, I'm sorry, I misspoke when I said Sitush hadn't edited the page again after your warning; he had. I missed it. But he hadn't made any attacks there, so I stand by my unblock. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Thanks for reviewing and letting me know. I may have been mistaken - I did think there were continued attacks and incivility at that talk page and AusLondoners' talk, and the aim was to prevent further escalation. AusLondoner was the subject of repeated attacks (dimwit, twat), but that was before my warning. Of course occasional profanity is fine (I didn't warn AusLondoner for replying with profanity, in the long form of WTF) but I redacted "Fuck you" - swearing in a conversation is different to swearing at someone. Fences&Windows 11:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, AusLondoner is providing a defense of your block on Sitush's talk page which has some damning evidence. It would be nice if it received a response from Bish before it inevitably gets deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but so long as there isn't a recurrence of that kind of behaviour I don't see a need to revisit the earlier spate of insults. Fences&Windows 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ST vs SW[edit]

Hi. I am open to adding the links that you suggested, even though I disagree with them. I'll add more counter sources, however it'll take me a few weeks to find them.

I also think it was a bad idea to post on the WikiProjects as there are fan boys on both sides that might end up edit warring. Just give me some time I'll put the article back the way you want it with some adjustments to keep it balanced.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)