Address

I have Chet's address!! He just called me, so I'll start sending emails now and if you are not listed above, list yourself below here. Starting a new list will keep me from missing anyone. لennavecia 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got a kind heart. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) By the way, everyone, he's doing really well! His zero week and first week were really hard, but he said that he's adjusting now and he's doing really well. He's gotten a few letters from family, but he's really looking forward to more. He now realizes just how important letters from friends and family are, so please write as much as you feel compelled to. He won't have time to write everyone back, but know that he appreciates your letters! He's in the same training squad I was in, which is crazy awesome, haha. But yea, write him!! لennavecia 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please pop me an email with his address, i'll write to him today. Steve Crossin /_{Help us mediate!} 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please send me it too. Xclamation point 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Meeee... :) hmwithτ 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

— Jake Wartenberg 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to write, people!! لennavecia 02:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Messages

wrongful death suit

Jenna is there no relevance to the story and the current legal action as it should be placed upon the history page until resolved?22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)98.250.12.72 (talk) Camp Tamakwa significant case law could potentially be the outcome of the lawsuit 98.250.12.72 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as the criminal case was removed from the page pending an outcome, so should the civil case. The criminal case was dismissed, thus does not belong on the page. The civil case should only be included if it results in a notable outcome relevant to the camp. لennavecia 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers, a challenge for you...

I don't like my sig font. It's getting on nerves. I want a sig with same Arabic symbol I use for the J and the same (or closely related) colors. That's all symbolic to me, so must remain unchanged. Otherwise, design away, if you are so interested, keeping the sig guidelines in mind, of course. لennavecia 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of IAR. I'm sure it's what Jimbo had in mind. –  23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, awesome. Thank you. XD Let's see what other alternatives come up. Hahah. لennavecia 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. How do I get one like that? I'd like a spinning bit as well if at all possible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but Lal Hilditch as Living people? ... I'd think 1894 dob would make it unlikely, but haven't been able to find obit yet. Not that there's really anything I'm asking you to do ... just an FYI. Nope, have no idea what compels me to post this. (other than your work in BLP) — Ched :  ?  02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can put him into Category:Possibly living people, or, as I would do, add Category:Date of death missing or Category:Date of death unknown. One of those. لennavecia 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, answers even when I'm not expecting them. Hey, do I understand correctly that you served in the military? .. if so, Thank you, especially on this day! I appreciate you protecting my freedom ;) — Ched :  ?  03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a veteran. Someone told me Obama asked all Americans to thank a soldier this weekend, so thanks. I thanked someone, too. :) لennavecia 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary source vs. secondary sources, WP:BLP vs. WP:V

Hi, your input would be welcome and appreciated here, should you care to comment. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting so quickly at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Exactly the sort of useful, pragmatic advice that I had been hoping for. A future project could be to make corresponding changes in WP policy … --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If a discussion is opened up on a policy page, let me know and I'll chime in there as well. لennavecia 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your crusade...

...doesn't interest me in the least: the status quo does, and that descriptive usage--which is correct whether one regards Jimmy Wales as a founder or the founder--had been there until QuackGuru went on his particular spree, complete with a false edit summary. Why you and he should have your knickers perpetually in a twist over this is beyond me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if people were more concerned with having accurate, verifiable information, rather than bending to the whims of the site's co-founder, there wouldn't be an issue. Thus, my bejeweled thong remains in a twist fighting for the obvious. لennavecia 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Carrie Prejean. Thank you. Rico (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Rico (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between being neutral and being vague. Which discussion are you referring to? لennavecia 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't be like Grawp

Well, that was fast. Three seconds after you moved it for me, User:One baleeted it. I've listed it at DRV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw this coming... and I think I eluded to as much. لennavecia 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

*hug*

*hug* Gurch (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

... *hug* لennavecia 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert I.Sherman

I want to be polite about this. You are making a mistake in the application of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Robert I. Sherman has alleged that George H.W.Bush made an offensive statement against atheists. He himself is (also be Misplaced Pages's standarts) a reliable source for the fact that he has alleged this. However, there are other sources (newspapers) that also verify that he has alleged this. Of course, these sources also point out the evidence against Sherman's account. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is clear on this point: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Any reader can verify the discussion about this topic from the sources provided and make his own conclusion. I will restore the article to its previous version. Zara1709 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'll take it to AN/I for further opinions. The article is an attack piece against a living person, whom has expressed objections to the content. It is not a biography, it presents no information on his life or career, only the details of two incidents. It's inappropriate, and several long-established editors and admins agree that not only is the content inappropriate, but to a point that it should be deleted to clear the history even if he is notable. لennavecia 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the ArbCom case at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff would apply here, as such, I've made note of it at the AfD. As always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. — Ched :  ?  07:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is probably one simply solution to this issue. As far as I can tell, he is notable, although not as journalist, but as political activist for atheism. This was not apparent from the preceding version, so it is understandable that you came to the conclusion that it would be a coatrack about a person that is notable as journalist. To show that he is notable as a political activist, I would have to count the news sources that mention him in connection to his political activities, and we would likely have to discuss WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. However, in the deletion discussion someone also wrote: "Subject of minor notability requested deletion of article about them." I find this hardly credible, considering that this person has such a large homepage and apparently likes the attention of the public. If he would indeed ask for a deleion of his WP article, he would not help to advance his cause; Although he wasn't that successful with his various campaigns (most importantly the one about the Bush statements), he helped to bring the atheist's issue into the public. But - if he has indeed requested that his article should be deleted, I think that I could go soft on the issue, despite of the work I have already put into this. I would have to know, though, what he has actually written.

Could you sent me a copy of the ticket via the "Email this user" function on my user page? I promise that I will keep its contents confidential and not disclose it to anyone. Zara1709 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot share the contents of OTRS emails. I can, however, confirm that the email is from the subject, originating from his own server. If you need further verification, you can have any other OTRS volunteer confirm that it is from him and that he has expressed strong objections to the article. لennavecia 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

"The result was Speedy delete. Completely inappropriate title deleted as attack." 100% in agreement, even though exactly that text exists in another article. I think this is exactly what WP:CSD#G10 means. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. لennavecia 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lara, care to help out?

Hey, Lara. What's happenin? I've been working on bringing the article Bill Szymczyk up to GA standards. I recently expanded it from a stub to its current state; its slated to hit DYK in a few days, and I would really appreciate having an extra set of eyes for a copyedit before I submit it for GA. Its just not a subject which is probably FA-worthy, so this may be as good as it gets. You have always done great work on other FA and GA articles I put together, and I always appreciate your perspective. Plus, you are the coolest chick at Misplaced Pages, and anytime I can pad my resume with stuff you have worked on too, some of your awesomeness may rub off on me. Muchas gracias, and BRC forever! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude.. all up my ass with the flattery, huh? I guess I'll work on it just so you didn't drop that dignity for nothing. XD Hahaha. لennavecia 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dignity? What's that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. لennavecia 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

Please see this discussion on Drawn Some's talk page for an explanation of those tags: Fences and windows (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a discussion about nomming this template for deletion? I'm all about it. I'll fully support it, or nom it myself if need be. It's a nuisance on BLPs. لennavecia 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It recently failed an MfD, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). I don't support deletion; I believe that Drawn Some was making a WP:POINT by indiscriminately adding the tag to about 60 articles in two days. Why is the rescue tag a problem on BLPs? Fences and windows (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't need people scrambling to save articles on marginally notable living people. Better things to do with one's time than scrounge up what few references exist on someone so we can continue to host a potential libel magnet that no one will be watching. لennavecia 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If editors auto-add pages to their watchlist it'll be watched. Why not raise this concern on the project talk page, the project is open to ideas on how to improve its functioning. I've seen a fair few articles saved for the right reasons by ARS, including BLPs. The problems with BLPs go well beyond the ARS though. Fences and windows (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's just like the "orphan" tag where we now have editors forcing links to orphaned articles in 'parent' articles that have little or no connection. These tags are useless and they do more damage than harm. Instead of just deleting these BLPs, you have people trying to force their inclusion by devoting inordinate amounts of time finding immaterial sources only to pray for a 'keep by no consensus.' Law _{type! snype?} 04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noting that I wasn't suggesting the project be nominated for deletion, although I did support that. I was simply talking about the template itself. Personally, I'd be happy as Hell to ban the use of the ARS template on BLPs, because I don't really care outside of that, but we all know that won't happen. لennavecia 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

eyes please

1. Kidnapping of Alan Johnston
2. Kidnapping of Shannon Matthews

actually they are events about BLP. I wasn't sure how to cat. I left on the list with note - project and cat talk pages didn't seem as active as your talk page .. thought I'd post here and MZM. Suggestions or thoughts? — Ched :  ?  08:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. MZ will probably say no. We should probably have a project discussion about it. لennavecia 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MZ said "yes, sorta," for the record. And ugly editnotice is ugly. :P --MZMcBride (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

stfu! My edit notice is good times... >_> Useful, at least. لennavecia 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

sometimes not sure how useful I am to the project at the moment. :-/ ... but I'll monitor any threads I'm aware of. — Ched :  ?  22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having articles that are "The X of <insert person>" is how editors prevent a BLP from being deleted by way of WP:BLP1E. It completely skates the system and we all know the that the probability of actually hitting that sequence of words in the 'find box' to produce a searchable result is absurd. @Ched - you don't have to be useful to be on JV's talk page, few of us are :P Law _{type! snype?} 01:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Law, how you doin these days? Remembering that you'd had some distressing times recently, I hope that life is on an upswing for you. ;). Apologies for not being a bit more chipper today, but a recent post to my talk page left me feeling rather discouraged and disappointed. I suppose that hanging around the cream of the crop admins like you, Lara, and MZ had me expecting more than I should from administrators. Yea, I kinda pester her talk page a bit, but she hasn't bitched me out yet .. lol. Well, need to sleep on a few matters, ... Best to all. — Ched :  ?  05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Supposed Personal Attack

WP:TPO The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

WP:RPA "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

• Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:RPA and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

WP:REDACT Strike out, strike-through, strike through, etc. To place text in strike-through (HTML ..., ..., or ...) tags. This is very rarely used in articles, but is relatively common in votes and discussions when a contributor changes his or her opinion. As not to cause confusion, the outdated comments are struck out (like this). The inserted material HTML tag is sometimes used with it to show a replacement for the struck material. Generally, one should strike out only one's own comments. Some editors prefer to simply remove or alter their updated material, though this is discouraged if others have responded to it and their responses would not longer make sense after the change. Note: Neither strike nor s will exist any longer in HTML 5/XHTML 2, so del is recommended. Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context.

• Due to the following edit I believe a strike is appropriate for continuity.

Comment--Dear Wiki fans, I sincerely ask your pardon for last message (27 May) with no sign-in name. My friend told me it’s rude, so I now register with my real name, for 1st time. I am occasional user of Wiki only, so don’t do editoring, also not good in English. But looking at your discussions turn off me. For example, how can call someone Stalin in such discussions. Scary.--Zhang-ZQ (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Zhang-ZiQing

P.S. My comment may be off color but is not a personal attack. As many Communists look up to Joseph Stalin as well his cult_of_personality. So simply do not undo or delete my edit (due to your personal perceptions); I would hate to report a 30,000+ edit administrator for a 3RR violation .--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Do it. The person you made the remark to took it the same as me. Learn to behave yourself or you may find yourself unable to edit. لennavecia 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, let me just note that comparing an editor to a totalitarian dictator that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people really cannot be taken as anything other than completely inappropriate by anyone with a shred of common sense, whether or not there are sick people in the world that admire the man. لennavecia 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey sweetie pie maybe before you go around deleting someone’s comments and leave curt-passive aggressive messages on someone talk page you should familiarize your self with wikipedia policy; because the tone of your messages and innuendo leaves much to be desired.

But hey what do I know, I don't give a WP:FUCK...--Duchamps_comb MFA 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After closing as "keep"

Hi Jennavecia. Hope you don't mind, but after you did this, I did this and this. Best wishes, Paul Erik 18:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you!! I'm on the keep side so infrequently, I completely forgot that part. XD لennavecia 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Katarzyna Dolinska

Just curious, but was this article supposed to remain a redirect? You placed creation protection on it back in Nov. 2008 to keep it a redirect, but at a user's request moved the redirect to a different name, which allowed the article to be recreated. Normally I wouldn't think much of this, but I've seen sneaky COI users do similar things to override creation protections, and considering the article was recreated several times after AfDs resulting in delete outcomes (i.e., it appears certain editors are determined to see this article retained), it all just seems a little fishy.  Mbinebri  19:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I think I mistook something. Looking again at the history shows you protected the article to retain it as a redirect, then the user created an entirely new page with a different spelling of the subject's name to avoid the protection and asked you to merge the block-enforced redirect, thus overriding it and getting the article back when it was supposed to remain a redirect. Looks even more fishy to me now.  Mbinebri  19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I hadn't realized the possibility of that. If the article shouldn't exist, by all means nom it for deletion. Thanks, لennavecia 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the redirect is appropriate so I reinstated it, although how long it will last is the issue if the previous creation protection doesn't automatically apply to it (I don't know how those things work).  Mbinebri  21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I reprotected it. لennavecia 22:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are clear on how AFDs work

I see that you deleted Mark Abis and then undid yourself and closed it as a "Keep" vote. If something was a delete, how does it suddenly switch all the way to Keep? You realize that there's a middle ground of "no consensus," right? This isn't about you having a super vote for yourself that overrules all other discussion, delete or keep based upon what you want to do, it's about reflecting what the discussion concluded. If your determination was that it ended as a delete, how can you just switch it? DreamGuy (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think my restoration comment and close comment summed it up. Maybe read them again?

00:33, May 31, 2009 Jennavecia (talk | contribs | block) restored "Mark Abis" ‎ (33 revisions restored: Missed that he has a song on compilation album.)

The result was Keep. WP:MUSICBIO #10, inclusion in compilation album. لennavecia 12:35 am, Today (UTC−4)

While you're reading, check out WP:AGF because the tone of your message leaves much to be desired. لennavecia 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)