User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 5

Most of the media references come from the man himself, and are full of exaggeration. If I say he has just been removed from Warwick School and Warwick University you might appreciate why I wished to correct the falsehoods in the autobiographical article - and I thought the best way was to delete it. G N Frykman (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, but Wikipedia works using references available in reliable sources rather than original research. We reflect what is verifiable, not truth! Do you have any sources for him having left Warwick School and uni? Fences&Windows 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. And at least the article is now soundly based on sources without any peacock terms. Fences&Windows 12:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still listed on the websites for the school and uni, btw. Fences&Windows 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're the only other person to show an interest in this article. Do you have suggestions for things to add? I'd like to make it a Good Article. One technical problem: I can't figure out how to use a reference in two different places, without repeating the information twice. There should be a way to have two pointers to one reference. Do you know how to do that? Noloop (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about the Good article criteria when I'm done with some prod patrolling. I'm not that interested in the article; I watchlist every article I edit, and I think I initially stumbled on it when reverting some vandalism, which the article tends to attract. According to this tool, editors who have been active recently include User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Ed Fitzgerald, User:Stevertigo and User:Kurt Shaped Box. For the talk page, other active editors are User:Scarce, User:Xeno and User:Station1.

I've relaxed my view on the self-described bitches, btw, it's not that bad a section. Will always need solid sourcing. Fences&Windows 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to refer to a reference more than once is <ref name=whatever> in place of <ref>. Then to reuse the reference you use <ref name=whatever/>. See WP:REFNAME for more details. Fences&Windows 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup help. Any thoughts on what to do with the " Further reading" and "Empirical studies" sections that I mentioned on the talk page? I'm thinking of moving them to the talk page where editors can have easy access to them for further expansion and verification of the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The empirical studies section is a bit of a blot, isn't it? Wikipedia isn't the place for it, I'd support a move to the talk page. The most notable ones like Harnad's, Eysenbach's and Davis' should be worked into the article, if they're not already. I'll need to look at the further reading section again, but some of those do seem useful. Generally, the whole article needs revamping, but it's a lot of work. Funny that academics are so poor at writing a balanced, well-sourced and well-flowing article... I'm not the person to do a major revamp, as I have a competing interest in the matter. Fences&Windows 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Eysenbach's are in the article, from what I can tell. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Interaction After Childbirth - concept covered in books, but article reads like a how to guide, can't think of a place to selectively merge to. Sexual Passivity - probably more straightforward, although a redirect to Submissive (BDSM) might not be a bad option to prevent re-creation. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The topic of sex following giving birth doesn't fit at all with passivity or BDSM subs, so I'd not favour a merge. I'm sure the topic is worth writing an article about, but the present article does a very bad job of it. A far better title would be Sex after pregnancy. Fences&Windows 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no the two pages were separate can you take a looks! I meant merge passivity to BDSM subs, but the first one more of a delete or complete rewrite (if someone is willing to). -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misread. I've prodded Sexual Passivity, it has no content worth keeping IMHO. I'm going to try to rewrite the one on sex after birth. Fences&Windows 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start at User:Fences and windows/Sex after pregnancy. Fences&Windows 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good, I'll see if I can add anything later today. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked again to see if I could help improve, but it looks like a candidate for GA now! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, six hours later... it's live at Sex after pregnancy. I've put a merge tag on Sexual Interaction After Childbirth but I doubt there's much to salvage. Fences&Windows 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, if there isn't any objection to a merge in a week or so, I'll just go ahead and redirect it. That's probably the best option now. The page really looks good! cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to inform that i reverted the article back to my own version after you reinstated a referenced statement. Kindly see the talk page for detailed reason. A question... if i forget to put a reason when editting... is there any way i can put it AFTER i've made the edit.?Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 09:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can always explain on the talk page, as you did. Edit summaries are advisable, but not compulsory, so don't worry about it. Fences&Windows 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad to see that someone noticed - I was expecting another month of silence considering the low amount of attention the pages are getting... :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how PacketVideo is a subsidiary of NextWave Wireless, and neither this article nor NextWave's are very long, might it not be better to merge Packet into NextWave? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in two minds about this, then I read NextWave's description of themselves: "NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries develop and market mobile multimedia and wireless broadband products. Through our PacketVideo subsidiary, we provide many of the largest network operators and mobile device manufacturers in the world with products and technologies that enable next-generation mobile-media services. We also own an extensive portfolio of licensed spectrum in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and South America." So PacketVideo is a pretty substantial part of their business, and NextWave is really just an umbrella name. I'm fine with a merge. Fences&Windows 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects to merging cookie dough and cookie dough bites (or says anything), can you be the one to merge the two? I take you are a more experienced wikipedian than I. I think you'll do a better job. Thanks. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Fences&Windows 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added something following ur comments on Sarahs talk page but she deleted it..

The Irish government website has a geography section - [1], it starts out by saying The "Republic of Ireland". They describe the Irish tricolour as the Republic of Irelands flag in the symbols section of their website. [2]. Why would the Government of Irelands own website publish such things if the have a problem with republic of Ireland? The Irish governments revenue department send out this envolope [3], once again that uses Republic of Ireland. There are also many quotes from the Irish parliament where Republic of Ireland has been used in debates, including by Irish ministers. All this hardly sounds like there is a huge problem in Ireland with the term Republic of Ireland.

Im not sure how people can argue the term is British POV when the above show mainstream Irish use. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's many more hits on Irish government sites, see [4].

The reason it is seen as British POV is that from the '50s, the Irish government wanted to be referred to as "The Government of Ireland", and they wanted the state to be officially referred to as simply "Ireland". The British government refused to play along, presumably due to Unionist sentiments, and consistently referred to them as "Republic of Ireland" or "Irish Republic", which annoyed the Irish. When Ireland was admitted to the UN and the EC, they were admitted as they wished, as "Ireland", but the British government protested. The Irish get their own back by refusing to acknowledge the full official name of the UK as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", preferring to drop the "and Northern Ireland" bit, originally because the Irish state still had territorial claims on that part of Ulster.

But this bickering between governments is pretty irrelevant to what we should call articles on Wikipedia - we go with the widest recognised usage internationally. I don't much mind whether it is Ireland or Republic of Ireland, but the idea that the usage of Republic of Ireland is universally offensive to the Irish is plainly wrong, especially as many Irish sources use it themselves. Some Irish people don't like it, and that's acknowledged, but we can't please everyone all the time. Fences&Windows 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit summary here. It was a common mistake, no one is mad. :)--Cubs197 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? It wasn't 404 for me. Weird. Fences&Windows 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be hard to find sources but I'm sure that the various movie and game websites would lead to reliable sources (as would the standard actor interviews) in google? I don't see a reason to delete it as it is relatively notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyJesus (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I had assumed (incorrectly) it would be ok to nominate it myself since it would be a different user proposing the deletion. Reading the actual policy page, you're right. I'll send it thru AfD. Mental note made for the future. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forget that Prod is quite an obscure area, and it has the somewhat strange technicalities that anyone can remove it for any reason, it can't be replaced, and AfD trumps it. This is because it's only for uncontroversial deletions. It works OK, with 60-70 articles getting deleted each day via a prod, when all anyone had to do to save them was simply remove the notice. Fences&Windows 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section about pecuniary interests affecting the peer review process cited evidence of corruption within the program. It suggested that regulatory capture was behind the corruption. These are fair criticism. Why did you remove the section? RGK (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no opposition to well written and well sourced criticisms of peer review being included, but that wasn't a well constructed section. You were using own opinion and original research. Did the sources talk about "pecuniary interests" and "regulatory capture"? I've read your opinion of pharmaceutical research and peer review on the talk page for your product, so it's pretty obvious you're banging a drum, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX. Peer review can be criticised, but that section was out of place and didn't present the example you used at all well. The title alone was a mess. Fences&Windows 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for helping making the Yunioshi article better --Hybirdd (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments on this AfD. whilst we do not always agree, we do agree that this is one of the least notable combinations out there. simply voting keep without evidence because of a philosophical belief that everything is notable is not doing anyone a service. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a proud member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD! There's a strange wishful thinking to these votes, I don't get wanting to keep an article for which no content is going to be found. I guess their position derives from the polarisation caused by going through so many of these deletion discussions, and the experience of managing to rescue some of them, sometimes with impressive efforts at sourcing. They might be waiting for the cavalry to arrive, and putting down markers in the meantime, but really it is just vote packing. Really the blame lies with Groubani for starting so many unreferenced contentless stubs. In a bizarre way they did Wikipedia a favour as we now have much better coverage of bilateral relations than we did before all these deletion debates, but it'd have been better without the blood and tears. If an admin is fooled by these current keep votes I'll open a deletion review. There's been some that have been judgment calls about where you draw the line on notability, what counts as indepth etc., but this one is a no hoper. Fences&Windows 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes there's been a lot of debate on these bilaterals but voting keep or delete without clear argument or evidence is really wasting everyone's time. I really don't think Groubani did a great service, he has soaked so much time about of WP editors. he never bothered to build any stub beyond a stub. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I confused a Prod with a Speedy. My bad. I also EC'd your AfD; now sorted. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC'd? Fences&Windows 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Gotcha. Fences&Windows 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting all those who participated in the AFD for Avatar (Ultima) about a merge discussion affecting that article Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters Dream Focus 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fences and windows,

There seems to be a problem with large amounts of POV being added to this article by two editors, I do not have revert capabilities could you have alook at the article and perhaps revert the recent changes. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be best to discuss it on the talk page. I'm not very familiar with the detailed history of the Indian subcontinent or this particular civilisation. From a quick look I couldn't see any flagrant breaches of NPOV, generally the article seems quite well written. Fences&Windows 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been discussed on the talk page but certain users just come back and start where they left off witht he backing of 'other' editors, also if you look at the recent changes you'd see how it's changed from being a part of pakistan's ancient history (which it is as it's centred completely around pakistan and afghanistan) to being completely indianised with references to pakistan diluted and increasing references to India and it's 'ancient culture and people' ( notice the prominence of Dravidian being constantly added) and even an inclusion in the India article of the Indus valley civilization being centred in the Indian subcontinent ( by the same user I suspect, and without anyone objecting) even though it's India's main article and even though it's based primarily on the edge or outside the 'Indian subcontinent' and was stated as being located in the western parts of South Asia; which was changed to Indian subcontinent and some refernces removed (western parts) while the other references still present in the main section still state South Asia as it's location and not Indian subcontinent. I would have reverted myself but because two editors have started to make many changes and so this is not so easy, in any case I have reported the reversions etc. here [5], thanks anyway. Khokhar (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Indus Valley Civilisation, it has nothing to do with present day Pakistan or India, just like how the Romans weren't Italian. And "centred completely around Pakistan and Afghanistan" isn't really accurate; some of the area in the east of the civilisation is now in present day India. "Indian subcontinent" is a commonly understood international phrase, it's not Indian POV pushing. I may take a deeper look, but I'm not taking any sides. Fences&Windows 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we are talking modern day states here, otherwise we would have no use of geographical mapping for the civilization as then we would not be able to identify it's location on a modern map, and the Romans were an empire which encompassed a lot more than modern day Italy so that's not a fair comparison. A very small proportion of the Indus valley civilization is in modern day India, also Afghanistan or Iran are not parts of the Indian Subcontinent and they have proportionaly more coverage of the civilization than the republic of India so the Indian subcontinent is neither here nor there. In any case, Changing the article's wording from a factual statement like it's location and countries it includes to only Pakistan and India [6] is quite clearly POV if not also vandalism, and this was not checked by the other editor. Khokhar (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Dewan is making edit summaries like "Indus = India so change south asia to Indian subcontinent", so they're POV pushing. Indus =/= India. Fences&Windows 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summery does not allow me to give all the explaination. This is what I meant:

If you look at our Indian subcontinent and South Asia articles, you will find that "South Asia" is a term used in the context of contemporary (post-colonial) politics, while "Indian subcontinent" or simply "India" is used in colonial or pre-colonial contexts to refer to exactly the same region (arguably minus the islands). That is what I meant by India and Indus. I am not talking about the people or race but the land. Afghanistan or Kamboja (its ancient Hindu/Buddhist name) is clearly part of the Subcontinent see the artiles Kamboja or Middle Kingdom of India. Thank you Dewan User Talk:Dewan357

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Quite sad that senior editors are actively engaging in clear and overt Pov pushing by supporting editors who hold views such as this [7] and who make POV and false changes (last 24 hours) such as these [8], [9]. All my edits were explained and are supported by sources. Khokhar (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure my talk page is the best venue for dispute resolution, I'm not following all the ins and outs of the edits going on here. Fences&Windows 21:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. I realize that we agree about User:Logos5557’s article being inappropriate for Wikipedia. But please don't speculate on who he is in real life, or accuse him of bad-faith editing. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I believed they had a connection with the organisation; I made no effort to out them. A COI is not the same as bad faith, but "assume good faith" doesn't mean we should let editors do what they like with articles without being challenged. I gave my opinion of the state of the article, not the intent of Logos5557. He might well be editing in good faith, but have a blind spot and be unaware of how to edit neutrally. To the extent that WP:AGF and WP:COI clash, I prefer to call a spade a spade. Fences&Windows 23:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article needs to go, and editors should not be allowed to do whatever they wish. Still, the article itself is a clear enough delete that I don't think we need to worry about it. I got an urge to make Smokes (Dragon) for April 1st, btw. That one had me on the floor laughing. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note btw, my initial response was defensive but I do need to avoid being too sharp. Fences&Windows 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently PRODed this article. You may want to do the same to these [10] [11] [12] [13] articles created by the same abusive sock editor. They are all either minor variations of other firearms (see WP:GUNS#Variants), or are non-notable custom guns. There could also be others that I missed. I've been meaning to do this for a while but don't have the time and have no knowledge of PRODing things. Thanks. — DanMP5 04:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

I have started a case concerning the aforementioned user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I did apologise to User:K.Khokhar about what I said to the person because I myself felt bad. The reason was that the user was such a nationalist that I went off the roof. I myself am someone of Muslim Indian heritage so I don't understand Pakistani nationalism because Jinnah and Iqbal created Pakistan for the Muslims of India. So I won't say that I have a real problem with Pakistan itself but I will admit individual Pakistani users here are a problem. I have given my apology to the user Khokhar and the new account that the user I believe opened (User talk:Michale245)‎. User talk:Dewan357

Dewan357, thanks for letting me know about your apology. It's easy to get overheated on this issue. Trying to work with K.Khokar to reach a compromise would be good; I've advised them to try the same.

As for Michale245 and the ever-changing IP user, 86.15x.xxx.xxx: Nangparbat, I have no interest in you posting on my talk page. You have been banned from Wikipedia so please go find another website to bother.

To all Pakistani or Indian nationalists: Learn to edit with a neutral point-of-view and to be civil, or you all deserve to get permanently banned. It's an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Anyone who has anything to say to me specifically, please post here, but if you're just continuing a vendetta I'll delete the messages without a reply from now on. Fences&Windows 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou and sorry about this! User Talk:Dewan357

Appreciating your help and asistance in keeping your watch dogs at bay. their attitude reminds me of the famous University experiment on inflecting pain as a "right" punishment. Fortunately I am of the persistent, though not masochist, type. My way is to establish and publish articles as quickly as possible - learning by doing - and looking for improvement by others and myself, step by step. I know of many friends within the watch industry who have already renounced in participating because of the pettiness of judgment on part of the wiki environment.

claude (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was so confused, help me please to knew so called expected audience. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit inverted the meaning of the sentence and was grammatically poor. I believe that three things mean that you shouldn't edit English Wikipedia - your insistence on pushing a point of view, your edit warring and that fact that you are not sufficiently competent in written English. I believe that your edits generally make articles worse, not better. Fences&Windows 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the links so that they go to the new name, all the ones I could find anyway. I think it's safe to delete now. The ones that are still there are either from the prod, or showing because of a navbar link which I have fixed (takes a while to update I think). LK (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Fences&Windows 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was living in Britain at the time, but have no memory of them (I was on a political train headed in the opposite direction to yours; I would have waved had I known!). The article as it now stands doesn't really strike me as demonstratnig notability, which doesn't necessarily mean that notability couldn't be shown with some cleanup. With a contested prod, I'd normally nominate at AFD, but with the foregoing in mind, I'm open to tagging it for notability instead and seeing what shows up over the next few months, if you'd prefer?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it tomorrow, there seems to be plenty of material to work with. Fences&Windows 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm not interested in deleting articles, per se, just in clearing the underbrush. See User:Shereth/Deletionism ("Deletionism ... is simply about realizing that there are thousands of articles out there, poorly written, damaging the credibility of the project, that do not have any potential for improvement"). If there's material that can be added to this article establishing notability, I'm all for it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm no inclusionist, I nominate articles for deletion myself. I check for articles that look like they can be salvaged and only find a couple per day among the prods, out of a total of 70-100. And in a way I can thank editors for nominating articles that turned out to be notable, as they brought them to my attention and I improved them. I think where I differ from many deletionists is that they are quicker to dismiss the possibility of improvement, and I'm terrier-like in my hunting for sources. Fences&Windows 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Google books to the entry, as you suggested.

There are some major errors with it though, as you can see. I will add scholar this week.

User:Ikip/2009 August 31

Ikip (talk)

I just fixed the Google books problem, so after today there should be accurate readings Google book readings. Ikip (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is all through Autohotkey. A bot like that would be wonderful. I am planning on embedding the actual deletion discussions in a collapsed format. Ikip (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey F&W, thanks for the heads up. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at [14]. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]