User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 3

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Terror bombing#Shock and awe --PBS (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that you added a great pic to Alison Balsom, but just a reminder to use edit summaries. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anyway, I was just about to reply to you with "No worries and thanks!" as it closed, so any sorry for the belated reply, but I have been working pretty hard rescuing some other articles and I didn't want to not acknowledge your reply to me. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)‎ I have seen your name repetedly in the membership list, and always wondered about who you are and what you thought of the project. If there is anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to ask. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for becoming a part of the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame! Notice the little rescue floats at the top of this page now? Ikip (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have seen your message on my talk about Mitchellbrook.

You are right, Mitchelbrook is not a suburb of Brent, but I have seen a lot of articles about Estates, such as St.Raphael's Estate, Mitchellbrook is also an estate.

It still gives people detail if they need to search for Mitchellbrook.

AimalCool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I know it exists, but there are no sources referring to it in more than passing. It is impossible to write an encyclopedic article without reliable sources referring to it in some level of detail. If any sources do exist, it can be referred to in Brent Park. And you created St Raphael's Estate! If I can't find reliable sources indicate notability, I'll propose deletion of that article too. Fences and windows (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! while I appreciate the constructive critisim...

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Da Vinci Code, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fences and windows (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I wanted to simply say I stand by what I post.. else I won't post at all. Since you didn't narrow which post you considered bad practice.. I can only assume you are referring to the post someone removed ( more likely than not, you) in which I was addressing an individual who, it seemed to me was sidestepping the issue at hand, I stand by my post.. and have read the welcome page.. and as such I feel if anything.. both posts should have been removed...as his did'nt seem to conform the guidelines either. Now, I understand the whole "2 wrongs don't make a right" theory so lets not go there. On that disscusion page the precedent had been set and I wondered why it was allowed to continue in that manner. 205.172.172.132 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have seen your messages on my talk about Church End, London.

You are right, it is not a notable place in Brent, but it is still a small (unpopular) place in Harlesden.

If you want to get rid of this article, you can better REDIRECT the page to: Church Road, Harlesden.

Thanks

AimalCool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

After clicking on the Blender (software) link form the Graphics Lab, I followed the URL to the website (www.blender.org). After installation began, I got a pop-up from my Comcast Spyware software saying it had found large ammounts of Spyware in the software. Then I tried it again today to see if there was any difference, and sure enough, still Spyware. Should there be a note on the Blender (software) page & Graphics Lab's page?

Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. This was extremely valuable. Refdoc (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a TV Show logo I would like to upload, I would like it to have the exact same copyright info as File:King of Queens cast.jpg. How can I?

Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• :Can you change the color of the text on a user page? Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ::Could you help me match the copyright info for this image to this image, they require the same copyright info, but different specifics though of course! Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I had everything wrong! How do you delete images from the Wikicommons?

In reply to your note on Martin Mubanga -- OK fair enough. Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These difs should give you an insight into the intentions of wikivandal41s edits hes here to cause trouble thats it!!! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] I can explain all these and put them into context if you want me to but its obvious hes only on WP for pushing his pov and pro indian trash which belongs in bollywood movies not WP 86.158.176.222 (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to get emotional about this but I shall try his edits are being backed by none other than you guessed it INDIAN ADMINS!!!!

Accusations? unless you cant read this is proof not accusations did you even bother looking at the difs? 86.158.176.222 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting you cant read im encouraging you to actually read the difs and stop stating im accusing vandal users or canvassing the proof is smacking you in the face yet you call them accusations 86.158.176.222 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

before you go any further o this you should know you are wasting your time with a sock of an indefinitely Banned vandal Nangparbat. Wikireader41 (talk)

you might want to go over this info before you try to Debate this ip editor

Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

Algebraic123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Jailstorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AKA

Rashtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikireader41 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These false allegations by indian pov pushers has been used many times to get me blocked they accuse me of being some sock who was blocked last year i have nothing to do with nangparbt wikivandal41 and nangparbat both seem like two peas in the same pot to me both pov pushers of the nth degree indians have used this sock excuse because they know I will remove the edits of there pov pushing chum wikireader41 hes being used to push pov and im the only one standing up to this indian injustice so they cunningly accuse me of being a sock p.s my ip is dynamic 86.162.66.211 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is plain and simple LIES. why dont you report this serious matter to admins Nangparbat ? because they will turn around and block you. Wikireader41 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said my ip is dynamic the simplest loss of connecttion reboots my ip. Moving on hey wikivandal41 I have reported you several times its just that your indian brother nishkid64 jumps in whenever you cry to him and saves your slimy skin and ends the complaint section giving leaving you free to spew anti pakistani and islamophobic rants just leave wikipedia and go to India if your so patriotic why live in America lol :-) 86.156.212.111 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the ip thing connection problem. My suspicions have become reality ip 67.184.76.172 is a sock of wikireader41 he uses both to reinforce his pov !!!!!! [12] this dif shows him editing a user talk page and then again sending another message with a wikireader41 account [13] he needs to be put being bars or hanged in India 86.153.128.166 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC) [14] this user also has been editing kashmir conflict page with the same pov and has been blocked thats the time when wikireader41 started vandalising and using his ip 86.153.128.166 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This back-and-forth on my talk page isn't going to achieve anything. Both of you need to be civil and stop pushing a POV. Any more uncivil comments like those above and I'll seek action from admins.

• IP user, if you have specific concerns and evidence that Wikireader41 is party to sockpuppetry, then open a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. You should also register an account.
• Wikireader41, if you believe that this IP user is a sockpuppet, then again, stop making accusations on talk pages and open an investigation.
• Most importantly, you should both engage in WP:Mediation over content disputes to resolve this issue. Fences and windows (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Much appreciated, thank you. -- Lancini87 (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences,

I'm willing to drop some of the nominations; however, there are a number that do have a consensus to sack (Tatton Group, which has a really bad notability problem, comes to mind) that I do plan to see through.Tyrenon (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for editing other people's comments. I won't do it again. I have a idea. Why don't you lot block other people's comments on talks to be edited by someone else?

AimalCool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi - your removal of the {{rescue}} tag from this article also removed some more content including the only reference - was that your intention? pablo_hablo. 08:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was an error. A user was indiscriminately adding the rescue tag to about 60 articles, I must have made a mistake when removing it on that article. Fences and windows (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was probably a mistake, so checked the other removals you did - they all seem fine except for Plastec Ltd which I have sorted out. Indiscriminate slapping-on of the {{rescue}} tag (especially by people who then make no effort to improve the article) is a major pain! pablo_hablo. 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting those out, I'll try to be more careful next time I'm doing any mass editing. Fences and windows (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI - Why have you removed the {{rescue}} tag from this article?--AJzero (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry about the typo. Must have bumped the cursor into the wrong spot. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments. Please comment at the AfD for the article you ridiculed, Rawtenstall bus station, after a fresh look at it. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You padded out a page on a non-notable bus station. And? I'm not interested in discussing this with you further, I've made my opinion quite clear. Fences and windows (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed up that page a fair bit, though it does still rely pretty heavily on primary sources. Since it is on your /To do page, I hope you might be interested in reviewing the continued appropriateness of some of the tags or make suggestions for further improvements. Regards, - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prodding! Well done for giving it some attention. I have far too many things on my to do list, but I will take a look. Fences and windows (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come here at the suggestion of User:Drmies. When I did a (brief) search for the Dolly Rockers, I saw the usual succession of "offical website", MySpace, YouTube, and many unrelated hits. They looked just like any other non-notable band that appears with alarming regularity on Wikipedia, and with the complete lack of evidence of notability in the article, that is why I nominated them for deletion. Obviously, your good work finding references showed The Dolly Rockers were indeed notable. However, I am amazed that you didn't add any of that to the article itself. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be amazed. I was hoping that you might do some work towards improving the article you nominated for deletion, and was waiting to see if you would, especially after you were still arguing for deletion after I found the sources. Your searching for sources was clearly inadequate, and I thought the least you could do was to help improve the article. Nominators should make more efforts than a cursory search. Fences and windows (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I was waiting for you or one of the other "keepers" to improve the article, especially after I left two clear hints that that was what I expected to happen. Luckily, after Drmies came by and added the refs, the closing admin decided on keep. Seems everyone's happy, myself included. Anyway, in future I will try to do a better search before nominating for deletion. Astronaut (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some content now. Fences and windows (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny come lately here: Astronaut, I think it's a lot more fun to improve a bad article than to nominate it for AfD, and perhaps have such a nomination defeated. Bad articles can sometimes get you nice DYKs or teach you something. Yes, do a little bit better of a search (which, admittedly, can sometimes be difficult--but as a nominator you also have the responsibility to add the decent sources that you or others find), and you'll do much to improve the project--AfD's do take up a lot of time and they're not always friendly forums. Take care, thanks for dropping by, and Fences, thanks again for the good work. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read WP:BEFORE, and particularly the later section on How to discuss an AfD, I'm afraid I disagree with Drmies' comment that "...as a nominator you also have the responsibility to add the decent sources that ... others find". I believe that responsibility should be on the person who found the sources (see: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination") so that I could then withdraw the nomination (see: "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator"). Astronaut (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you should never have nominated it in the first place; you should have done a proper search and improved the article without nominating it. You don't have an obligation to improve an article you nominate, but it'd have been nice to see a little effort at article improvement. Fences and windows (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to AfD Stan Gooch as well? He's got one single gnews hit. [15]. Gigs (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's a bit of attention in fringe psychology to some of his stuff. I'll dig into it to see if I can find any reliable sources, and if not I'll AfD that article too. Fences and windows (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your brave invoking of WP:IAR to save many foreign language Wikipedia articles proposed for deletion, I hereby award you this barnstar. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew they should be saved, but couldn't think of any grounds to do so. Thankfully, you came along to save them. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If they do happen to be sent to AfD, could you drop me a line? (I know you keep a closer eye on AfDs than I do.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured an application of common sense meant that we should have articles on our sister projects. I will keep an eye out for AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern about this page.

The idea is that all the bus stations in England get a page on Wikipedia just like all the country's rail stations.

From the original entry you can see who much more detail has been included. Bus stations (or bus terminals) in general are an important as people wait there on the way to get where they are going and it is also a gateway to the villages, towns and cities that they serve just like airports.

Even though Rawtenstall may not be a major place, it does not mean that bus station can't be included with the rest.

Obviously there are pages within Wikipedia that one wonders why are they there ? Though I and others think that this page is valuable this is way it has been brought back.

Thank you again.

--Whohe! (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we do not need to get personal here but i don't think that i "wilfully damage" anything here on Wikipedia. Still i would like to see this page restored, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.

--Whohe! (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I disagree with you, as I don't think that all the bus stations in England are notable or worth including in Wikipedia. I'm not going to AfD them all, but you need a better claim to notability than just existing. Fences and windows (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and boldly merge it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add the reference about the sale to Dial to the Coast (soap) article? Or provide it to me? I couldn't find it. Cshay (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree. I meant to put the "add references" thing; I clearly didn't. Thanks for getting that. Yeah, that is notable, and it can be sourced. The non-notable one is Prince Akram who is a very dubious character: the only sources that claim his lineage are his, and the case files quoted are in effect bogus. Not to mention the family name shamaa is basically Chandler. As far as I'm concerned, at best his notability is--if proveable--limited to a tennuous claim of royalty, which, theoretically does not necessarily merit a page on him. Other, arguably possibly more notable "ancestors" might, in fact, merit a page, but haven't got one. He can be merged, if possible with something. I've checked Syrian sources and it doesn't seem that there's even a pretender movement, or nostalgia, or claim whatsoever...

thanks for getting the first one, though.

Baronsamedi88 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I agree. You might want to take a look at Mohammad Shammaa Al Zengi III too. Fences and windows (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the IP isn't a vandal, but some of the edits are too incoherent to be taken seriously. Since this has been going on for a while, I think some action is in order. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the best outcome action: study the sources. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't comment on my talk page unless you have something constructive to add. Fences and windows (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an outside observer, I've got to say that your restructuring and reconstruction of the Human Evolution article is a particularly fantastic piece of work!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For an excellent restructuring of Human Evolution. ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recognition, it was just some tidying really! Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with AfD. As far as I'm concerned it would be no great loss to delete 75% of the band articles, but this one has a faint hope of being saved so I didn't think it should be deleted summarily. Pburka (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And?...Tottenhamlad (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply here. Fences&Windows 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit here. Tottenhamlad (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I am extremely impressed by your arguments at this AfD. Kudos. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. My rhetoric was not quite worthy of Socrates, but thank you. Fences&Windows 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User "Sansonic" seems to be making changes to articles while apparantly under a block, their user page showing that they are currently banned for using sock puppets, this user again seems to me making edits to pages without sources as well. I may be misunderstating the user page but it appears that this user is blocked? They seem to be back making edits to the British Pakistani article and editing other articles to support thier edits to this article. The reason that I wanted to check with you as I can see that you helped with the initial sockpuppetry case and you may be more knowledgable of his/her tactics? I may be wide of the mark here but wanted to check with someone who may well have a different view on the articles being edited to me, but would have an understanding of the history and what may be going on. MattUK (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block expired last month, that template would be out of date. They were blocked for sockpuppetry, then the block was extended for further sockpuppetry. They've responded and acknowledged their behaviour, and doesn't seem to have repeated any sockpuppetry. Their editing style was to be pro-Pakistani, and to sometimes make unwarranted connections between British businesses and Pakistan. If their editing is not according to guidelines, revert and let them know. Fences&Windows 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clarifying things for me, I'll bring it up on the talk pages and see if that gets any progress that way, thanks again for clarifying things for me. MattUK (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are sources to support this article, I encourage you to add them. Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks for sourcing and restoring the information that I removed in the Photography and the law article. A cursory search revealed no information on any restrictions on the use of photographic equipment, so I dismissed the claims as unfactual. As for the mention of the Royal Parks, I removed them because they simply extended the the point that was made earlier in the same paragraph, regarding photography on private property. I considered the illegitimacy of photography on a public square to be questionable, I apparantly underestimated Britain's propensity for draconic measures against tourists. Signed, Vadigor (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your recent statement about the editors on the talk page, you may want to let them know that the page is now at AfD an encourage them to participate. As only 3 people (including you and me) have participated so far, we could certainly use the aid of some other editors in establishing a consensus. I really don't know whether other press conferences (though this is a bit more than just a press conference) have articles (and I don't really know where to look), so this could be an important "test case" of sorts. As always, the more the merrier at AfD. Cheers.Cool3 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't inviting them to comment just be blatant canvassing on my part?! I've added it to two more deletion discussion lists. Fences&Windows 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider it canvassing. You're not going out and trying to find people who want to delete the article; you're just letting people who have been involved with it know that it's up for deletion. If you post a brief, polite neutral message that complies with Wikipedia:Canvassing then I think everything should be fine.Cool3 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also posted to major contributors. Fences&Windows 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its up for deletion. Im planning to work on it tommorow but was hoping maybe you could find some sources? I dont seem to have anywhere near your talent for digging them out, and anyway an American would probably have a much better idea where to look. I remember the excellent sources you found for Homelessness in the arts and other rescue efforts, and btw its on my to do list to put the ones for homelessness to good use. No worries if your busy or dont think the subject needs a dedicated article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I've still got Homelessness in popular culture on my to do list, I'm sure I'll get to it sometime! Fences&Windows 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great sources which quantify the problem and talk about the related issues. I wont do anything on the homelessness for at least a couple of months then, but sooner or later those sources have to be put to use! :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is looking a lot better; thanks! ( I was sort of hoping the original editor would fix it, but it may have been a one-shot deal; and it's not a subject I know much about, truth to tell) Swanny18 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing Medical debt from WP:AFD. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It'd not have been saved without FeydHuxtable pointing me at it and making good use of the sources. Fences&Windows 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is very well known in the UK - it is a goto word for any silly exercise device or commercial product. I've added a reference and removed the prod. Perhaps you could add the sources you found to the talk page. So far they still aren't great, but mentions of this thing are ubiquitous in the UK. This and the thighmaster... Ooops, there's another article in need of help. Verbal chat 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Fences&Windows 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I contested your PROD, I managed to find refs for her to pass WP:POLITICIAN and have also moved the page to the spelling used in her official profile. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Fences&Windows 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re[16]: Do you really like to inject there 20 + sources? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted: 1. Y-DNA and mtDNA are unexplained abbreviations, we should spell them out in the lead. 2. "Earlier studies" implies these studies are in some way outdated, which is misrepresentation. 3. Talk of "deep genomic lineages" is jargon that won't be understood without explanation. 4. It is only some researchers who argue this; consensus is still that these coalescence times do not support multiregional evolution or significant admixture. 5. It didn't scan well. Fences&Windows 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• re:2. The studies were de facto earlier due to simplicity of mtDNA and primary focus on Y-DNA. 2 Outdated not outdated but explain only minor portion of human genetic pool. 3 Just after 8 generations the parental/maternal line are diluted 2^-8=0.003 (is the math right? yes it is) But the mEve is about 8000 generations away. 4 There is off course more more complex things to think about and the example is very simplistic. 5 Anyway all evidence together taken + the mt&Y DNA do not contradict multiregional evolution. 6 On the other hand genomic data, yes contradict recent replacement. 7 Do you agree (6)? 8 Is it true that mtDNA and Y-DNA studies are earlier than genomic studies on deep genetic lineages?

After you answer(or rather confirm) 7 and 8 I will proceed to discuss other your thesis. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it would be good if you would acknowledge that your wording doesn't read well. Fluency of writing is important, especially in the lead of an article.

I don't accept that genomic data necessarily contradicts a recent African origin, as I explained on the talk page of the multiregional evolution article, e.g. [17]. Hammer and Templeton disagree with this conclusion, but it's still an open question. Also see this review that explains why estimates of TMRCA for nuclear loci can be a problem: "Estimates of TMRCAs from autosomal genes are higher than those from mtDNA or NRY. In theory, they should be higher by a factor of four and the estimates are in this direction, although the number of autosomal genes studied is small and estimates of TMRCAs vary considerably. For analyses of autosomal and X chromosomes, recombination can complicate genealogies and make TMRCAs impossible to estimate. There is also the possibility of heterozygote advantage, which has the potential to increase estimates of TMRCA."[18]. Also see Box 3 in this review:[19], whcih explains that long TMRCA is expected for autosomal genes under Out of Africa. As for mtDNA and Y-DNA studies being earlier, there have been studies this year. Your wording implies that they're superceded by the nuclear DNA studies. Fences&Windows 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this article to AfD. Throught this AfD, I have become aware of some bio articles here on Wikipedia which seem to be about one shot event people or people who may have had a relationship with someone else at one point in time. The JFK assassination articles seem to be a haven for these types of articles. Namely, George de Mohrenschildt, Judith Exner, Chauncey Marvin Holt, and Guy Bannister all seem to fit into the same type of article as JVB. As someone who contributes significantly in this area of Wikipedia, I would appreciate your help in fixing these articles as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that they're only notable via a connection to the JFK assassination, it's that fringe views are dominating, and editors are owning some of these bios. I'm not much of a conspiracy theory afficiando, I only came across Baker's bio when prod patrolling, but I agree that there's a need to keep tabs on these other bios. Fences&Windows 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that this page has come up on the ARS log. Can you check it out? Since I'm the nominator for AfD, I don't want to take any action, but I think it isn't productive use of ARSquadron time. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was incorrectly added to the category without using the template. I've reverted it. Fences&Windows 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've had to follow this user with a mop and bucket because of the number of duplicate articles created and some of these confusing edits. They're possibly good faith, but not encyclopaedic. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]