User talk:Fæ/2012/F: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Fæ | 2012 Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:41, 15 July 2011 editXenophrenic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +rep← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:00, 15 July 2011 edit undoFæ (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers83,148 edits →Edit warring: rNext edit →
Line 214:		Line 214:
	== Edit warring ==		== Edit warring ==
	Thank you for the courtesy of not templating regular editors. Yes, I am quite familiar with the related policies. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might resolve this recent dispute? As an aside, I have been collecting offline quite a list of quips and barbs (to use polite terms) from your comments to and about me. Before dumping them on a noticeboard, I'll extend to you the courtesy of allowing you to directly address and hopefully remedy what is fast becoming a serious problem. Regards, ] (]) 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)		Thank you for the courtesy of not templating regular editors. Yes, I am quite familiar with the related policies. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might resolve this recent dispute? As an aside, I have been collecting offline quite a list of quips and barbs (to use polite terms) from your comments to and about me. Before dumping them on a noticeboard, I'll extend to you the courtesy of allowing you to directly address and hopefully remedy what is fast becoming a serious problem. Regards, ] (]) 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
			:Yes, it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text to be added to ] that includes a fair description of the Superhead nickname and the sexual context of it (her books sell on the basis of her describing herself as a coke whore and having a background of having sex with celebrities) and the facts regarding the porn video of the same name. Your current approach is well beyond what can be justified by BLP and instead appears to be ensuring that nothing critical is added to the article. In fact with your most recent additions you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations that her publisher would be delighted to see. If you want to report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out, quips and barbs (sound like a description of Oscar Wilde's writing) are rather trivial compared to persistently introducing bias to Misplaced Pages articles or disrupting a consensus building process.
			:Interesting that you are collecting information about me off-line, that sounds worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening. You may want to focus your efforts more constructively. Thanks ] (]) 10:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:00, 15 July 2011

User talk:Fæ/2012/F/head

Archives

2010
2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"æ" can be entered by +0230 on Windows systems or by and ' on a Macintosh system or encoded in html as æ I have no problem with my user name being typed in as "Fae".

Fæ is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Disclaimer

Any opinions expressed on Misplaced Pages, sister projects or in tweets and blog posts are mine and do not represent the opinion of Wikimedia UK or any other organization that I am affiliated with. – Fæ/2012

Barnard castle School

I'm not sure why you've been so zealous with the BCS page. Surely a citation needed tag rather than outward deletion of the people listed was all that was needed? Farrtj (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I've cited all but three of the list now. Those three have been added by people, and although there is no reference to them going to BCS, there is circumstantial evidence (lived in the locality) and there is no evidence of them having gone to other schools.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

ok i have removed advertising material so please remove the template Db-g11 from that page(talk)

DYK for British Library Philatelic Collections

On 25 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Library Philatelic Collections, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Library Philatelic Collections has over 8 million items and was established in 1891 with Thomas Tapling's bequest? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

pie for you

File:Pie.jpeg

illogical pie has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re Dasavatharam

The discussion sounds very interesting. Also have a look at another high-grossing Tamil film. Post your views there. Thanks!

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at 69.181.248.16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	I award Fae The Real Life Barnstar for the excellent organisation of Wiki-events, such as the recent Editathon events at the British Library. Well done! Marek.69 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marek. I'm glad you avoided the temptation of kittening me or offering me a sugary confection that might cause me to lapse into a coma.

Fæ (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Online volunteer co-ordination

Hi Fæ, following on from conversations at GLAMcamp, I've created a page at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/Online volunteers to try and co-ordinate tasks for online GLAM volunteers. Basically think of it as a newspaper small ads for Wikipedians and others. I've put up the V&A event needing Indian speakers - you might want to rewrite it slightly. Also, any other task big or small, if we could put it there, and try and encourage people to add it to their watchlist. I'm also going to put up on there the suggestion that people add {{User GLAM interested}} to their user pages so GLAM projects can more easily find volunteers. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Though "GLAM interested" does sound a little like "Bi-curious"...

--Fæ (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting involved with GLAM projects is like being bi-curious, I guess, but with a lot less sex and a lot more faffing around on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But GLAM is full of sex, walking around the British Museum you are always bumping into erotic imagery. Take a good look at the Greek pottery next time you are there, terribly saucy, though strangely you'll probably be the only one taking time to look in the cabinets. I agree about Commons though, far too much faffery (though a lot of it involves sex too, albeit much less artistic stuff). Fæ (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking

Hi Fae, it would be awesome if the V&A staff could consider Tipu's Tiger organ to be removed from its glass and played. It could be recorded & a video/music (ogg vorbis) file be placed on Commons. Otherwise, nineteenth century visitors in the East India Company Museum would have had a richer GLAM experience of the object than today! Just a wish - dont know if its feasible. AshLin (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find some videos of it being played at http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/t/tipus-tiger or http://www.vam.ac.uk/channel/things/craft/playing_tippoos_tiger/ (it's noisy!). I reviewed these with our V&A contact and we talked about releasing at least one to Commons, this will be a topic to be picked up again for the event on the 16th July wmuk:VandA_Wikilounge.

--Fæ (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be so awesome! AshLin (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Amplifetes page

Hello Fae,

I assume you haven't seen my reply/update in the original post, since your tags are still present on the page, so I am posting it here again. I have changed all links but one to non-youtube ones. Regarding the press/media reference links, I have posted a lot of new ones. However, as the ones already posted actually already did meet the critera you posted, I am not quite sure what you mean, with all due respect. Anyways, loads of non english reviews/interviews are there now, so I hope we're ok now?

If not, could you please point me to where exactly the problem lies, i.e. which the faulty links are?

Thank you and best wishes! Peter Ågren/Tha Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.78.43.38 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have addressed the question of notability (in line with WP:BAND) but I have left the self-published sources improvement tag in place as sources such as facebook and some of the other blogs are not encouraged under Self-published sources. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again!

Ok, thanks! So, just for me to get this straight so I can work with you here; which are the other "blogs" you refer to? There is little way for me know... Please let me know so I don´t have to start randomly deleting perfectly acceptable links. Also, the one FB-link you mention is there just to present a scan of paper mag only article(no internet version), do you know of another way of doing this without using FB or similar?

Also, is there a zero tolerance re: FB etc? You would think that if it is there as an exception to a large enough body of other, acceptable links it would not present an issue as the section as a whole would make it clear that there is no foul play intended?

But more importantly, please show me the exact links/blogs you want me to get rid of and I´ll do it asap and throw the FB link too, so we can close this:)

Thank you again for your assistance!

Best regards, Peter Ågren/The Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films of 2011

How is this a vio?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dr. B; per Talk:Bollywood films of 2011 → precisely the same issue raised at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films#Copyright_concerns → resulting in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Cheers Fæ (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Karrine Steffans

Extended content
Didn't you get the memo? Any and all mention of Ms Steffans' past endeavors in porn are instantly removed from the Misplaced Pages article about her by the vigilant duo of Malik Shabazz and Xenophrenic. Any new text about Ms Steffans' (established & notable) dalliances with the "dark side" of showbiz is instantly undone, the action justified by vague referrals to "WP:BLP" or "WP:RS". They seem determined to protect a helpless damsel in distress. Another Misplaced Pages mini drama-series. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) You really should exhibit a little more good faith, and refrain from commenting on the motivations of your fellow Misplaced Pages editors. I can't speak for Malik, but my edits to that article are strictly based on upholding the Misplaced Pages policies clearly outlined in WP:BLP. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Having good faith towards my fellow Wiki editors, as I hope I have, does not mean never calling them on what I perceive to be bias. We have here a person whose sole initial claim to notability is her past as a video clip model and nude dancer, a career which bestowed on her a certain "nickname". She then used (or allowed the distributors to use) that "nickname" for the title of a porn movie in which she was prominently featured. None of this is allowed to be mentioned in the Wiki article about her, though it is all amply documented and clearly relevant. Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor), that part of her past is clearly encyclopaedic information. Personally, I have ceased to bother with this aspect of the article, months ago. My initial remarks to the duo abt their "snow-whiting" of Ms Steffans' life in Misplaced Pages were characterized as a "personal attack" and they deleted it from the article's Talk Page! So, I'll let others take up the thankless task of going up against the brick wall of empathy that seems to protect Ms Steffans' Wiki entry. If anyone feels up to it, look up Good and bad uses of invoking BLP guidelines for a start.-The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Your perception of bias is unfounded. I don't even have enough knowledge about the subject to have formed a bias; never read any of her books - never seen any videos (music, adult, or otherwise) - don't recall even hearing her name before I stumbled across it as a footnote in the Bill Maher article. I treat that BLP just as I do all other BLPs that I edit. Just your recent description of the subject here illustrates why BLP admonishes us to use high quality sources. You make comments like "a career which bestowed on her a certain 'nickname'", yet Fæ just showed me an embedded video clip proving that totally false. You say she "allowed" the use of the nickname for a porn movie, yet legal actions indicate otherwise. Perhaps now you better understand why BLP policy hasn't allowed some of your edits. I find your other comments about the subject, such as "Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor)" and "...their 'snow-whiting' of Ms Steffans' life" illuminating. Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC) A person who stumbles upon the Misplaced Pages entry about Ms Steffans, as it currently stands, will only learn about her career in the hip hop milieu from a TV show's press release. And that is all. The interested reader will never learn if the reasons for her initial notability, if she ever shot a porn video, if she subsequently contested in court that porn video's release, if she accepts or not the "nickname" used by her, by her interviewers in numerous shows she has appeared in, etc. The article itself, as it currently stands, contains a link to an article by the African American Literature Book Club that calls her by precisely that "nickname"! Yet, the "nickname" is not permitted to appear anywhere else, ostensibly because it lacks "reliable sourcing". You have expunged any and all of this from Ms Steffans' entry. The unsuspecting reader sees only the career of a writer with a past in music videos. If this is not "snow-whiting", I do not know what is. As to your personal remarks about my ability to remain neutral on a BLP issue, I'm sorry you feel I'm incapable of contributing to BLPs. I could refute this insulting remark by pointing out the many BLP articles to which I've contributed, some of them clearly more "controversial" than Ms Steffans', but I will only say this: Objecting to what one perceives to be blatant bias, for or against something, does not make one non-neutral. Neutrality in BLPs does not mean accepting significant omissions from a BLP article without protest. What you (and Malik Shabazz) are doing, instead, seems awfully close to invoking BLP where it is clearly inapplicable and might have a chilling effect on discussion, in contravention of Wiki guidelines.-The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Whoa, partner. First, you are citing an essay, not a Wiki guideline or policy -- read the boxed text at the top of that link. Second, I never said I felt you were "incapable of contributing to BLPs" (and yes, I will indeed correct every misinterpretation of my words that you make). All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing. It's great to be passionate about the stuff we edit articles about, but sometimes, like with BLPs, not so much... Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Your "explanation" is weak, insincere and ironic ("All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing"). As to your labeling me "passionate" about the subject, this is a typical tactic in flame warring: one uses inflammatory words and sarcasm, then pre-emptively labels the other party as taking it all too seriously. (And yes, I will indeed point out every use of inflammatory tactics you make. But not always. I don't intend to lose much time over this.) You find my comments "illuminating" without explaining what this is supposed to mean and then you write "Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP". How else am I to take this except as sarcasm and innuendo, implying that I'm incapable on working on BLPs? If I'm unable to maintain neutrality and abide by Wikirules on a low-importance rated BLP article, I must be broadly incapable of doing much on BLPs. So much for your (new) personal accusation that I am somehow trying to "misinterpret your words". Perhaps if you were to use less sarcasm and innuendo in your reponses, communication would improve. At least, you acknowledge in your Wikpage that "coming off a bit snarky at times" is one of your weaknesses. I sincerely hope you work on that.-The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC) More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- shrugs -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually. One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised. I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC) One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I took a second look, I find the NY Daily News a suitable reliable source, so the argument that it there are only SPS seems too thin to hold water. Fæ (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I'll take a look at the edits, and the concerns already raised on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I reverted the addition of some very poorly sourced contentious content. From what I gather, there was some adult-content film footage shot more than a decade ago. Vivid, hoping to capitalize on Steffans' more recent publicity, dug it up and apparently incorporated it into a video. I also understand there were legal actions taken, but the details are sketchy and difficult to find in reliable sources. I don't see any indication that Steffans is in the porn industry, despite the wording of recent edits — and their placement in the "Actress" subsection, any more that Paris Hilton is. Do you have any reliable sources that give details from both sides of the issue, as well as legal outcomes, etc. And preferably sources that indicate the relevance and significance of that content, from a BLP perspective? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented on the article talk page, particularly odd is the effective suppression of the word "Superhead" in the scenario where Steffans uses its notoriety to market her own books. I suggest discussion is kept in one place and prefer further responses on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I pointed out on the talk page what WP:BLP says, and how the most recent edit violates it -- and while you and Malik have posted several times on the talk page since then, what I pointed out hasn't been refuted or properly addressed. I'll keep an eye on that talk page, as you suggest, in the hopes you'll get around to it. Also, if it isn't too much trouble, could you please provide evidence that Steffans uses the alleged notoriety of the word 'superhead' to market her books? Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Didn't you get the memo? Any and all mention of Ms Steffans' past endeavors in porn are instantly removed from the Misplaced Pages article about her by the vigilant duo of Malik Shabazz and Xenophrenic. Any new text about Ms Steffans' (established & notable) dalliances with the "dark side" of showbiz is instantly undone, the action justified by vague referrals to "WP:BLP" or "WP:RS". They seem determined to protect a helpless damsel in distress. Another Misplaced Pages mini drama-series. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You really should exhibit a little more good faith, and refrain from commenting on the motivations of your fellow Misplaced Pages editors. I can't speak for Malik, but my edits to that article are strictly based on upholding the Misplaced Pages policies clearly outlined in WP:BLP. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Having good faith towards my fellow Wiki editors, as I hope I have, does not mean never calling them on what I perceive to be bias. We have here a person whose sole initial claim to notability is her past as a video clip model and nude dancer, a career which bestowed on her a certain "nickname". She then used (or allowed the distributors to use) that "nickname" for the title of a porn movie in which she was prominently featured. None of this is allowed to be mentioned in the Wiki article about her, though it is all amply documented and clearly relevant. Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor), that part of her past is clearly encyclopaedic information. Personally, I have ceased to bother with this aspect of the article, months ago. My initial remarks to the duo abt their "snow-whiting" of Ms Steffans' life in Misplaced Pages were characterized as a "personal attack" and they deleted it from the article's Talk Page! So, I'll let others take up the thankless task of going up against the brick wall of empathy that seems to protect Ms Steffans' Wiki entry.

If anyone feels up to it, look up Good and bad uses of invoking BLP guidelines for a start.-The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your perception of bias is unfounded. I don't even have enough knowledge about the subject to have formed a bias; never read any of her books - never seen any videos (music, adult, or otherwise) - don't recall even hearing her name before I stumbled across it as a footnote in the Bill Maher article. I treat that BLP just as I do all other BLPs that I edit.

Just your recent description of the subject here illustrates why BLP admonishes us to use high quality sources. You make comments like "a career which bestowed on her a certain 'nickname'", yet Fæ just showed me an embedded video clip proving that totally false. You say she "allowed" the use of the nickname for a porn movie, yet legal actions indicate otherwise. Perhaps now you better understand why BLP policy hasn't allowed some of your edits. I find your other comments about the subject, such as "Even if she has changed her life around (and perhaps some folks take it as their mission to help her in this truly noble endeavor)" and "...their 'snow-whiting' of Ms Steffans' life" illuminating. Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A person who stumbles upon the Misplaced Pages entry about Ms Steffans, as it currently stands, will only learn about her career in the hip hop milieu from a TV show's press release. And that is all. The interested reader will never learn if the reasons for her initial notability, if she ever shot a porn video, if she subsequently contested in court that porn video's release, if she accepts or not the "nickname" used by her, by her interviewers in numerous shows she has appeared in, etc. The article itself, as it currently stands, contains a link to an article by the African American Literature Book Club that calls her by precisely that "nickname"! Yet, the "nickname" is not permitted to appear anywhere else, ostensibly because it lacks "reliable sourcing".

You have expunged any and all of this from Ms Steffans' entry. The unsuspecting reader sees only the career of a writer with a past in music videos. If this is not "snow-whiting", I do not know what is. As to your personal remarks about my ability to remain neutral on a BLP issue, I'm sorry you feel I'm incapable of contributing to BLPs. I could refute this insulting remark by pointing out the many BLP articles to which I've contributed, some of them clearly more "controversial" than Ms Steffans', but I will only say this: Objecting to what one perceives to be blatant bias, for or against something, does not make one non-neutral. Neutrality in BLPs does not mean accepting significant omissions from a BLP article without protest.

What you (and Malik Shabazz) are doing, instead, seems awfully close to invoking BLP where it is clearly inapplicable and might have a chilling effect on discussion, in contravention of Wiki guidelines.-The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, partner. First, you are citing an essay, not a Wiki guideline or policy -- read the boxed text at the top of that link. Second, I never said I felt you were "incapable of contributing to BLPs" (and yes, I will indeed correct every misinterpretation of my words that you make). All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing. It's great to be passionate about the stuff we edit articles about, but sometimes, like with BLPs, not so much... Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is weak, insincere and ironic ("All I did was give my opinion, based on your recent remarks and some remarks from the past, that your letting others have a go at this specific BLP would be a good thing"). As to your labeling me "passionate" about the subject, this is a typical tactic in flame warring: one uses inflammatory words and sarcasm, then pre-emptively labels the other party as taking it all too seriously. (And yes, I will indeed point out every use of inflammatory tactics you make. But not always. I don't intend to lose much time over this.)

You find my comments "illuminating" without explaining what this is supposed to mean and then you write "Perhaps it is better that you have decided to let others handle this particular BLP". How else am I to take this except as sarcasm and innuendo, implying that I'm incapable on working on BLPs? If I'm unable to maintain neutrality and abide by Wikirules on a low-importance rated BLP article, I must be broadly incapable of doing much on BLPs. So much for your (new) personal accusation that I am somehow trying to "misinterpret your words". Perhaps if you were to use less sarcasm and innuendo in your reponses, communication would improve. At least, you acknowledge in your Wikpage that "coming off a bit snarky at times" is one of your weaknesses. I sincerely hope you work on that.-The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.

One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.

I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page, as I noted I would above. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a second look, I find the NY Daily News a suitable reliable source, so the argument that it there are only SPS seems too thin to hold water. Fæ (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the edits, and the concerns already raised on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of some very poorly sourced contentious content. From what I gather, there was some adult-content film footage shot more than a decade ago. Vivid, hoping to capitalize on Steffans' more recent publicity, dug it up and apparently incorporated it into a video. I also understand there were legal actions taken, but the details are sketchy and difficult to find in reliable sources. I don't see any indication that Steffans is in the porn industry, despite the wording of recent edits — and their placement in the "Actress" subsection, any more that Paris Hilton is. Do you have any reliable sources that give details from both sides of the issue, as well as legal outcomes, etc. And preferably sources that indicate the relevance and significance of that content, from a BLP perspective? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced by the arguments presented on the article talk page, particularly odd is the effective suppression of the word "Superhead" in the scenario where Steffans uses its notoriety to market her own books. I suggest discussion is kept in one place and prefer further responses on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out on the talk page what WP:BLP says, and how the most recent edit violates it -- and while you and Malik have posted several times on the talk page since then, what I pointed out hasn't been refuted or properly addressed. I'll keep an eye on that talk page, as you suggest, in the hopes you'll get around to it. Also, if it isn't too much trouble, could you please provide evidence that Steffans uses the alleged notoriety of the word 'superhead' to market her books? Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Thakur Dal Singh

Dear Fae: Thanks again for your encouragemnt to a beginner. I appreciated it. If you see the sand box, I have divided the write up in sections as desired by you. I would like to revise Reference 3 to make it more specific and state, " Letter dated 1 May 2011 from Mohan Singh, Renowned Painter from Bikaner, Rajasthan , India." But I could not figure out how to revise the references, there in no edit for references. Please guide me. With all these changes, is the write up acceptable now? Thanks. Pkandhal (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)pkandhal

Hi, my reply is on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Patulia high school

Restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Flimi Tadka

A lot of images on Commons have been uploaded from this site. They have a CC-BY-SA license, but my concern is that they may not be the copyright holders of the images. E.g. Their gallery contains a lot of movie stills and "celeb photos" and the like {e.g. , etc). Was there ever an OTRS ticket on this one like we have on Bollywood Hungama? And if not, what's the best way to handle this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll investigate shortly... --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

List of images. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Actually, these portraits look okay. The website contains images which are not available on a free license but these are not the ones being uploaded. The page at http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html makes it unambiguous that the CC-BY-SA only applies to photos from their parties and specifically points out that posters and other promotional material are not available on a free license. Any such image on Commons should be deleted but those being uploaded by Fanofbollywood look okay as they appear to be restricted to the portrait photos from FilmiTadka parties. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know why I missed that part of the license when I was reading, may be time to get new glasses! —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:David r from meth productions

User:David r from meth productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I visited the talk page of this user and notice that a year ago you approached him about a possible conflict of interest. This is a note for your information.

Today my attention was drawn on Twitter to this diary entry by Nick Cohen in The Spectator in which he mentions that editor's apparently proprietorial approach to editing certain articles which he (Cohen) associates with Johann Hari and those with whom Hari has had altercations in the past. He accuses the editor of denigrating others and sanitizing Hari's article, and speculates coyly on his identity.

I thought you should be aware of this escalation into the "real world". There is an ongoing series of accusations of plagiarism, apparently well founded, and so Hari is getting a fair bit of negative attention in the press. . --TS 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though the account appears to have been dormant for a few months anyway. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is also under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cohen & Hari. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't do anything any more!

-- 91.2.181.3 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages for what you might want to do rather than just vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

okay. -- 91.2.181.3 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Yehya Saade

Teh D'oh! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For you to eat for being helpful. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tha Amplifetes page again

Hi Fae!

I am sorry to be on your back about this, but it just would be great to have it resolved asap...so therefore I´m reposting this:

Hello again! Ok, thanks! So, just for me to get this straight so I can work with you here; which are the other "blogs" you refer to? There is little way for me know... Please let me know so I don´t have to start randomly deleting perfectly acceptable links. Also, the one FB-link you mention is there just to present a scan of paper mag only article(no internet version), do you know of another way of doing this without using FB or similar? Also, is there a zero tolerance re: FB etc? You would think that if it is there as an exception to a large enough body of other, acceptable links it would not present an issue as the section as a whole would make it clear that there is no foul play intended? But more importantly, please show me the exact links/blogs you want me to get rid of and I´ll do it asap and throw the FB link too, so we can close this:) Thank you again for your assistance! Best regards, Peter Ågren/The Amplifetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tuva (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDwiki (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

David r

There's actually a lot more behind this. It also involves oversight I instigated of a page that concerned this editor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of sockpuppetry are not recent at all. Look at the talk page archives - back in March 2006 User:Felix-felix clearly suspected Hari was editing the page and socking as Dave R and the numerous IPs from which he edited: . Nothing was ever done then, more's the pity. Why has no SPI been undertaken?. Maybe you should start with looking at User:Thelionforreal, User:Robblackhurst and User:Quinefan for a start, as socks of Dave / Dave R / David R / David r from meth productions and/or Hari, and the numerous IPs that 'Dave' edited from. I find it incredible that Misplaced Pages isn't investigating this - if Dave/Hari has been editing for so long and so abusively for so many years, why hasn't it been looked at before now?. 86.137.138.157 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your identical comment on the David r user page. Your complaints would be taken more seriously if you were prepared to log in, plus you would gain the benefit of not having everyone known your ISP and location. See Summary of benefits. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fae. So my complaints of a potential case of socking aren't going to be taken as seriously, because I sign in as an Ip than if I had some random username?. Really?. Is that how wikipedia really works? I know it's not a democracy, but still... I don't mind if people know my Ip and ISP and location. Anyhow, it seems pretty clear those accounts were created to create a false consensus against Felix-felix on the Johann Hari talk page. Just sayin'. MuddyFunster (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Around issues of reporting other users, many would find anonymous IP complaints worrying and there are practical limits on how anon IP contributors can be involved in creating a consensus. I do subscribe to the view of the IPs are human too essay but you have to keep in mind that an IP address is not consistent and some contributors might be constantly changing their dynamic IP in-between contributions. Fæ (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BRUTE LABS wikipedia page

Hi, I have done my best to address your concerns on Brute Labs. Would you mind taking a look and giving me some more feedback? 216.239.45.4 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thank you for the courtesy of not templating regular editors. Yes, I am quite familiar with the related policies. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might resolve this recent dispute? As an aside, I have been collecting offline quite a list of quips and barbs (to use polite terms) from your comments to and about me. Before dumping them on a noticeboard, I'll extend to you the courtesy of allowing you to directly address and hopefully remedy what is fast becoming a serious problem. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text to be added to Karrine Steffans that includes a fair description of the Superhead nickname and the sexual context of it (her books sell on the basis of her describing herself as a coke whore and having a background of having sex with celebrities) and the facts regarding the porn video of the same name. Your current approach is well beyond what can be justified by BLP and instead appears to be ensuring that nothing critical is added to the article. In fact with your most recent additions you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations that her publisher would be delighted to see. If you want to report me to a notice board, please knock yourself out, quips and barbs (sound like a description of Oscar Wilde's writing) are rather trivial compared to persistently introducing bias to Misplaced Pages articles or disrupting a consensus building process.

Interesting that you are collecting information about me off-line, that sounds worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening. You may want to focus your efforts more constructively. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)