Jump to content

User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20


Theranos AfC

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

"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

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

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

⚠
⚠

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

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:

Source:

  • 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.

120-121

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

121

  • 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."

122

  • 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.

123

  • 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

125-126

  • 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

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

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

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

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

Leila Deen

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

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

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)

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. 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

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)

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. 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

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

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)

ST vs SW

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!

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a hoax

My article was not a hoax. It was real, I provided references, and I am unhappy that you suggested this. His technique is based on Löffler's medium, so of course there are similar. I am not a vandal. Please assume good faith. --Rijavano99 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, my video was not copyright. I had permission. --Rijavano99 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The references were checked and failed verification, the text was plagiarised, the linked person is a linguist, and this account was blocked on Commons for uploading non-free content. Blocked indefinitely as clearly not interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 01:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed comment

I was in a discussion about whether or not Flow should permit or prohibit editing of other people's comments. This edit[1] was pointed out as an example of the risk of malicious edits. Your comment was apparently removed, but I haven't studied the context to understand what was going on. I figured I'd just check with you. Do you consider that an objectionable edit? Thanx. Alsee (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Alsee, it had been noted that my comment had been removed but I hadn't looked into how. I have commented at User talk:Edison to note this removal. I have no reason to believe it was malicious, but it wasn't OK to remove as the discussion was ongoing and the comment wasn't archived. Fences&Windows 15:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
There was certainly no malicious intent. I hold you and your contributions in the highest regard. Wikipedia sucks as a user-friendly website, since normal well-intentioned contributions result in shitstorms such as this. I move a comment to the correct thread and unexplicably your contribution disappears. Please understand that when I started using computers, I had to punch a deck of punchcards, or a punched paper tape. Regards. Edison (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Edison, no shitstorm here :) The original discussion was that Flow should block editing people's comments to prevent "accidental or malicious" edits. I now realize my comment above left out the "accidental or" part. Oops! When I saw that it was two admins involved I figured this was going to turn out to be entirely innocent. Alsee (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
All's well that ends well. Fences&Windows 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your help updating the University of Chicago article! Michikog (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Fences&Windows 00:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nutcracker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ratchet. 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) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Women are wonderful

Thanks for the info. I just don't know what to do there. First, the IP attacked me, & changed everything, then they repeatedly attempted to hide info so they could pretend that they had worked with me on the article. Something which I had originally tried to do from the beginning. However, if an editor disagrees with them they continually revert everything. Now that they have the article the way they want it, they come back pretending to be willing to work with editors. It's wholly frustrating and I don't understand why I should be the editor who's getting railroaded here. That IP's been unreasonable from the beginning, but I get that they've written so much that editors are only reading what I've written. I still have zero idea how Wikipedia admin can see two editors in conflict, yet they then run to warn only one of them to stop. (Especially since doing so shows obvious favoritism.) I've tried putting a multiple issues tag on the article while working on issues and even that gets reverted. I'm fairly even tempered, but I'm not going to be a pushover or "yes man" which is the only type of editor that IP appears to be willing to work with thus far.

As for the article itself, the sole reason for all these changes is to promote TRP and MRA rhetoric mainly on Reddit. It's always some SPA IP that shows up right after that article gets linked on Reddit to eliminate info about the subject. Less sources, less info about any subject creates a stronger POV for said subject. I personally, don't believe Wikipedia should be used to promote some fringe groups idea, but from everything I've observed to date, that seems to be the direction it's headed. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. Fences&Windows 01:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Disability editathon

Hi Fences and windows, I noticed you had posted Welcome templates to a bunch of new editors who seemed to be engaged in an editathon about disability-related topics about 12 or so hours ago. Do you know anything about the editathon, such as who arranged it? I'm from WikiProject Disability and would really like to contact the editathon organizers to discuss the "aftermath". Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I think the edits popped up via a tool called Pushipedia, I just added welcome notices as they were newbies but I didn't notice that they were part of an editathon. Fences&Windows 21:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I counted at least eight completely new editors who all worked on a handful of "high profile" disability-related articles over a period of less than two hours - that's a typical editathon pattern. However I didn't find any concomitant edits by any experienced editors who might have been the editathon leaders. It frustrates the bejabbers out of me when such "ninja style" editathons happen - newbies arrive unannounced, do their thing and dissapear - all without even attempting to engage with relevant WikiProjects. Their efforts can be so much better if only they would involve the established editors in the process. We could advise them on what articles need work, what sources are good, etc. Instead I've had to delete entire sections that these folks added to various articles due to OR, NPOV, PROMO and plain old unsourced. I've even seen off-wiki "advice" aimed at editathon participants that basically said "avoid contact with regular WP editors, they will destroy your work with their stupid rules". WikiProject Disability could actually do with a bunch of new enthusiastic editors, we're a very small project with a huge topic to try to cover, so we're constantly overstretched. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that newbies should necessarily work with WikiProjects, but editathons in specific subject areas probably should give them a heads up. I wonder at how useful these editing drives are - I started slowly, learning the ropes, but some new editors seem to expect being able to contribute successfully without learning how to. Encouraging undergrads and the like to edit en masse often leaves a mess behind - and they never return. Fences&Windows 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Ashford

Hello
I came across this page, and the AfD's that go with it a couple of days ago, and noticed you had responded to a query on the talk page, so I thought I would ask you; do you think it is worth differentiating these individuals in some way? Although the current subject is clearly more notable, a lot of incoming links referring to the other guy; I wouldn't want anyone following the links to the current page and assuming she was the person referred to. What do you think?
Some possibilities I thought were:

  • a) adding a hatnote ("this article is about the English crime novelist; for the pro-paedophilia activist of this name see this AfD/L A (activist)": (as for that, we could leave it as a redlink (which has the deletion notice when followed); or we could put a redirect there to the AfD; or put the AfD template & link on that page).
  • b) changing the incoming links to LA (activist) (and then one of the above): perhaps a simple change, or maybe striking the old one and adding the new, for transparency.

I was thinking either one or the other (or even both) though both seem problematical; but I didn't want to leave it as it is now. What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking User:Xyl 54. I don't think a hatnote is suitable - they are not supposed to include red links and there are no other articles mentioning him on Wikipedia now. By "incoming links", do you mean on talk pages and in Wikipedia project space? Those could certainly be changed to Lindsay Ashford (activist) to avoid confusion among anyone finding old conversations. Fences&Windows 23:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this; I was a bit too done in last night to reply then.
I'm happy enough to lose the hatnote idea; if it were my page I probably wouldn't be too chuffed to have that at the top of my page. My qualm about changing the links was the idea of editing what are (in many cases) closed/archived pages, but I suppose they still get bot-generated/house-keeping edits.
Anyway thanks, I'll get on and do that. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Just an addendum: I think I've got them all, now. The Lindsay Ashford page still has about 30 incoming links, but AFAICT they are all for her page. The LA (activist) page now has about 50 incoming links (there were about a dozen before) but they are all much of a muchness; nothing from any articles, just various talk pages. I've also edited the article talk page to clarify the AfD history: I hope you are OK with that; if not, please let me know or revert it. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you User:Xyl 54 for sorting through all those links, a useful piece of housekeeping! Fences&Windows 11:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali Miraj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Woodford. 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) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Article : Omar Sharaf

Thank you for your review and input. The additions, deletions and corrections you referred to have, hopefully, been made. I would appreciate if you could kindly review the article once more, and if it meets with your approval, remove the tags or advise accordingly.

As for the photos that have been deleted, I would appreciate if you could also provide me with the correct release format, bearing in mind that all original Sharaf family photos and documents are in my sole possession. 12:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMAZZA1925 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your further work on this article, User:OMAZZA1925. I've removed the tags, though you could still work on providing more accessible sources directly about Sharaf. I had to do quite some work to satisfy myself that Sharaf had done most of what was claimed in the article, as most of the sources are offline and in Arabic. This is allowed, but makes checking the sources much harder! Some of the ISBNs for the books published in Egypt didn't seem to exist, and URLs to the newspaper articles, even if you need to register, would be useful where they exist. You could also provide brief quotesfrom sources using the parameter Quote: in citation templates.
For the photos, this is an issue at Wikimedia Commons, the sister site of Wikipedia that stores images and other media. I asked admins over there to review the files and they found that most were apparently copyrighted by someone other than Sharaf's family and lacked evidence of permission to use. Even if Sharaf's family own a copy of a photograph, that doesn't necessarily mean they own copyright on that photograph. Photos taken by a UN photographer, for example, might belong to the photographer or the UN. If you or the family do hold copyright to any of the deleted photos, you have permission from the copyright holder to release them under a free license, or they are in the public domain, then please read this advice on providing consent. Also see Commons:Commons:Licensing and Commons:Commons:OTRS.
p.s. Sign talk page posts by ending your post with four tildes (~~~~ Fences&Windows 16:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brix Smith, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Steve Hanley and Paul Hanley. 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) 10:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day..

I assume you have some decent privileges to close the matter, and not that I disagree, but I do not consider your attitude to my efforts at contribution to be at all appropriate or respectful. I have more than enough experience to participate in the forum, as I've been trying to help various aggrieved parties get through their first disputes. Unlike the attitude given to me in my first one. You may be a veteran editor and have a vast array of knowledge on the micro-mechanisms, but you are using language that is not informative but condescending. I have a mentor, Oshwah, becuase of the way, when I re-entered the WP space, the situation was handled by 'so called experienced editors' and the attitudes they portrayed. I have no intention of starting a dispute with you personally, but I do not 'cop on the chin' disrespectful, demeaning, rebuttals directed at me when I'm the only one trying to help someone. Teach, not condemn, is the role of a veteran editor last time I checked. And if you think that was what you were doing, you might need a refresher course in 'bedside manners', though in my experiences so far, a large majority of 'veteran editors' have no care about such information being redirected back at them. With due respect, Nuro G'dayMate! 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nuro. I don't aim to be condescending, but rather direct. I don't doubt you were trying to help, but I don't think you were helping. AN/I is a noticeboard to get admin attention to incidents that might need our tools - blocking, deleting, protecting pages. Others can post there and I'm not banning you from it, I'm just saying I think you need to lurk for a while longer if you want to be effective in your comments there. The board already suffers from squabbling between the involved parties and lengthy tangents, and well-meaning advice from non-admins can derail threads and make it hard for admins to tease out what needs to be done. Someone else pointed out an over-lengthy post of yours and you were also offended by that comment and you say you have a mentor because of how other people treated you before, so maybe you do need to learn to take such comments on the chin? Try a less fraught board, like the Wikipedia:Village Pumps or the reliable sources noticeboard.
I closed the discussion because the initial report was resolved and further discussion of whether or not the original poster should have discussed his concerns and why he didn't wasn't needed. I could have posted my reply to you on your own talk page, but I honestly didn't think of it - sorry.
I also saw an edit summary in your recent editing with BLOCK CAPS, accusing someone who reverted you of vandalism, and when I checked the content the citation given didn't support the content. CAPS comes across as shouting, and reverting content is not always "vandalism" - this is a word to use sparingly, especially in a content dispute. The source you have provided afterwards still doesn't support the commentary about genres. It might be true, it just isn't in the source - and Wikipedia works best when we stick to what reliable sources say. Don't worry, I won't be trawling your contributions: that edit summary stuck out. Fences&Windows 10:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the reply, and to the specifics of the CAPS response I made I did so very intentionally, as deleting what I was working on still, without first discussing it with the article contributors, namely me at the moment, was uncalled for. The reasons were also very condescending. If they wanted to contribute to the article, and help out with the written word, then that would be a different matter. But commenting without contribution is an inappropriate action by an Editor on WP, irrelevant of their privileges or position. Simply asking me to rewrite it would have been suffice, and it would have been very different. I've since done so anyway. They also didn't have a proper User Name, which I've learnt to be very suspicious of. I do however understand the Terminology issue that is part of my continuous learning curve, and accept your advice to remember these factors. As for the he ANI, I got dragged in due to another editor asking the help of another editor, who came across the points I was making in my first section, and wanted me to participate in the scrutinising of this editor. Even though I'd gotten off to the wrong start with said person, I didn't think that what they had been doing was wrong, if anything it was what I'd learnt needing doing on WP to have an article be correctly done. As for my involvement on there, I'll become very quite now, as I've become involved in two more issues, that I have knowledge on the subject matters, but I get your point on this also. Anyway, my regards and I understood why you closed the article, never had a problem with that...NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 12:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nuro. Editors can remove content or revert edits without prior discussion, it's called being bold. A common practice is being bold, reverting, discussing. Also, IP editors are allowed to edit unless a page is semi-protected and they have as much right to do so as editors with accounts. Some editors will be primarily content creators, others will do minor edits ("gnoming"), others will patrol recent changes or new articles and then edit, revert, tag, discuss, or report as needed - so long as those different ways of contributing are done in good faith and without being disruptive, we can welcome the contributions. Fences&Windows 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croydon serial cat killer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond. 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) 10:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fences_and_windows/Archive_18&oldid=1077880616"