User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 16

OA journals

• Could you perhaps give me an outline of how you plan to re-organize the categorization of open access journals? Up till now, "hybrid open access journals" was a sister cat of "open access journals" (reserved for journals that were completely OA), but you have now made it subordinate to that one. I see you also categorized "Medknow academic journals" as OQ journals. I still am not convinced that it makes sense to put publishers-specific cats in the OA journals cat. If ever such a publisher decides to publish even a single non-OA journal, we'd have to change everything again. I put a lot of time and effort in the categorization of journals and I thought things were pretty straightforward as they were. Of course, I probably made mistakes (not surprisingly given the amount of work involved) or done things in a less than logical way, but I'd appreciate if you could explain to me what you think should be changed. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It just seems more sensible to lump them together if every single journal from a certain publisher is OA. Let's deal with things are they are now, not potential futures. "Hybrid open access journals" is a subset of "Open access journals", isn't it? As a "sister category" it'd never been seen by anyone viewing Category:Open access journals (or vice versa), unless we were to add a "See also" at the top, which is usually an awkward solution. I'm thinking of ease of navigation - hundreds of journals all in the one category isn't easy to navigate. Fences&Windows 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There was something for admins to do and they did it but nothing happened as a result

OhanaUnited opened this ANI. The discussion resulted in several admins and others expressing opinions that OhanaUnited had unfairly attacked me.

• Malik Shabazz: "I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block."
• OhioStandard: " the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line."
• Demiurge1000: "it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination?"
• Heimstern Läufer: "Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk."

OhanaUnited did not agree to any of these opinions, in spite of having requested them, instead coming up with new accusations against me quite unrelated to his earlier claim. And the original PA remains unredacted. I would like to ask you to reopen the thread, adding if you wish a strong caution against off-topic squabbling. I did not feel my introduction of Mbz1's comment was off-topic, since it demonstrated what OhioStandard just said. Hatting the off-topic squabbling would probably also be good, and feel free to include my mention of Mbz1's comment under the hat. betsythedevine (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will be productive, I'm afraid, though I'd not edit war if it were reopened. Ohana was out of line and the comments in that thread can act as a warning to him. I'll also make a note on his talk page to that effect. Fences&Windows 22:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fences, I'm absolutely convinced that you meant well. In a sense we were on the same page: When RolandR's mistake hit the fan everyone got all excited and then the fur certainly looked about to fly. But Betsy really does deserve resolution on this extremely serious accusation. She made a dumb mistake (sorry Betsy, I make plenty myself) by not searching for a previous SPI, but she shouldn't have to have people bringing up Ohana's posts for the next three years to try to paint her as a despicable person.

I regret having to re-open the thread, but I just didn't think I had any choice in good conscience. Even if that angered you, as I expect it must have, please understand that I wasn't personally motivated in any way. I'm going to post to Ohana's page myself, as I saw you did, as well, and see if I can help sort this misunderstanding. I say "misunderstanding" because if I were an SPI clerk who'd received the third request concerning a single user in a short time, I might get pretty hot, assume the worst, and say something regrettable myself. If you'd like to reply, feel free to do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure reopening the thread won't help, but as I said above I won't oppose it and I'm not angered in the slightest. Fences&Windows 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain

Hi, you posted this probably giving a second chance to this user. But he would not be able to respond to your questions as his talk page access has been revoked. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks v much. Giving a last chance. Fences&Windows 02:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion

Some years ago, it appears you were one of several editors who approached the Article Rescue Squadron to notify them of rescue template misuse (so was I). If I'm reading correctly, it appears you were one of a handful of editors who gave (now-banned) user:Benjiboi feedback on Template:Rescue tagged. Recently I see your edits and mine crossing on Warwick, New York. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share something of your experience joining discussion on Template talk:Rescue. I hope this doesn't come across as canvassing for favorable opinion. I'm asking if you'd skim through the active discussions and choose to make comment. No hard feelings if you decline or disagree with my friendly solicitation. I'm reading Orange County, New York history subjects lately. If I can be of any assistance, feel invited to call on me. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere much and I'm not really an AfD regular anymore, so I'm not sure what to add to that debate. I'd say broadly that rescue tagging can be helpful when it is suspected that a topic is notable but that getting sources is tough, particularly non-English or technical topics, or when some serious editing is needed for POV concerns. But it's only effective when those who arrive actually do improve the article, not just vote-stack "Keep". The real annoyance is when it is used to call in extra votes rather than to improve neglected articles, that's why I left the ARS after a few months. Fences&Windows 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your experience and mine are not-dissimilar. Thanks for the input in your response. While I agree the tool is unlikely to change much and still can be misused with little consequence, I believe consensus has shifted slightly. Some long-time members do see a reason to change approach when dealing with such complaints. I'm diving back into AfD discussions in a minor way, making sure I'm not just talking about the problem, but actively helping rescues when possible. The time budget issue is a key for me; my intrinsic interest is in page building, not squabbling (even in a worthy AfD discussion). I prefer to work on stuff which interests me, and deletion discussions are somewhat serendipitous in scope, even inside a given content area. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Football score

Re. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#A_different_perspective

You said to Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs), "what are you going to do to enforce it, monitor the changes during the matches and revert them all?"

Yesterday was the 2011 UEFA Champions League Final - playing from around 18:45 until around 20:30 UTC.

So, see [1] [2] [3].

Initially, I tried to discuss this in Talk:2011_UEFA_Champions_League_Final#Score_updates_removed.

I also raised it on that users' talk page [4] but that didn't get any response, and was just removed [5].

 Chzz  ►  23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How deeply petty. Fences&Windows 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure - in one way, it is.

I was just sat there, watching the match on telly, and had a look at the article - saw the score, and updated it. I don't normally edit footie articles. I was annoyed when it was undone, and added it again with a ref - it was removed again. It doesn't overly bother me, as such - although I do object to his use of 'rollback' on another user who added stuff, 'coz it absolutely wasn't vandalism.

Pettiness aside though: it's a very real concern that new users might well update the articles - and reverting/undoing them for that, and/or warning for 'vandalism', is terrible WP:BITE.

It seems, at the moment, that Walter Görlitz - and some others from that Wikiproject - simply do not understand. I've tried to explain. I hope others can convince them.

Regardless - thanks for your input there. Best,  Chzz  ►  00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning them for vandalism would be pretty bizarre. Was that done? Using rollback is incorrect too. Fences&Windows 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming that user, or anyone else, actually warned anyone. But the edits were removed, and one was rolled back, yeah. So I'd like them to understand why that isn't appropriate - in particular, Walter Görlitz - or, if he will not understand that, we need to take further action such as removing his 'rollback' or warning, etc.  Chzz  ►  07:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Game

A discussion about improving Wikipedia's help documentation inspired an idea--tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or know some editors or coders who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. You can add feedback at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game where discussion has begun. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 08:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Flamarande

I wish to thank for your discovery of the 2nd sourced translation. Granted, it probably isn't 100% perfect (IMHO it's truly very difficult to translate a speech into another language in a perfect manner and accurately capture all its meanings and innuendoes). However it's simply way more accurate and simply better than the 1st one (which IMHO is simply lacking in quality and dare I say it? - tainted). Rest assured that I'm not following some secret plan to sneakily offer excuses for Von Trotha's decisions and orders. The guilt of the imperial German government (especially of its military branch) shouldn't be denied. I will certainly not remove Mamadani's quote and conclusions (I would love to point out that the translation he uses is of very poor quality, but Wikipedia is not the place to challenge established scholars - no OR)

However to defend the 1st translation ad absurdum and at the same time attempt to block the 2nd one because of so-called "concerns of OR" stinks to high heavens. I have very little doubt that if this was any other subject (not involving Germans) it simply wouldn't be an issue at all. The better translation would be used with a simple note that the 1st one is simply inaccurate. But one must follow the rules (and I will). Again, thanks for your discovery. Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that both translations were actually by the same translator too! The original German and the alternative translation should be provided, possibly in footnotes. Aside from Mamadani's use of the poorer (IMHO) translation, there are other sources that draw a connection between the actions and statements of Von Trotha and the later Holocaust, I'm sure those could be used to bolster that section. Fences&Windows 01:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You deduced that right from the start; I was bit confused at first, but then agreed (it was more than obvious: The same mistranslated words at the same places...). Notice just how MyMoloboaccount persistently stated that Mamadani translated it. He repeatedly questioned the logical and obvious conclusion, somehow failing to look it up in the book, even as I asked him twice if the book gave any sources. It was User:Stephan Schulz who had to do it for him. I'm not afraid of the ugly truth as long as it is the truth and everything (including accurate translations) checks out. But to favour certain mistranslation because they use certain ugly words which are loaded... Now that's what I would call OR. I suspect that Mamadani doesn't know German at all (just a wild guess, nothing more). However he clearly based at least some of his work upon the word cleansing. I believe that he read the 1st translation and trusted it in good faith (his problem, not mine). I can only hope that he (Mamadani) notices its flaws and improves his book asap (he should ask ppl he trusts how they would translate the whole speech before quoting some portions of it).

You see that's exactly what the pitiful and hate-filled Neo-Nazis (German or otherwise) are hoping for: mistranslations, mistakes and similar things. They would would loudly point out the mistake and shout that Mamadani knows better but that he uses the wrong translation on purpose and this is all a big conspiracy against the "honourable" Von Trotha (crap like that). They wouldn't take this on good faith at all (they don't care about the truth). The only way to prevent this is to correct the mistakes as swiftly as they are pointed out and confirmed as such. Flamarande (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That essay

Hello, Fences and windows, I saw your post and here's my response: This essay violates no policy. It was written by me and another editor, (probably mostly by another editor)in my user space. I believed it was deleted, but it was not deleted. Here it is: example 1. This edit got moved or redirected together with other edits see here from User:Mbz1/article2 that is now The Emergency Bandage (I know it is confusing), but because everybody seem to hate this essay so much, may I please ask you to speedy delete it? I do not believe that another editor who put more work than I did in this essay would mind. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see it's closed now, that's for the best. We've got too much negatively slanted material in project space. Nice article, btw. Fences&Windows 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New venue

Hi F & W. Thought I'd like to preserve the thread our mutual friend began just for her, hope you dont mind. Re this, then:

"Hate to say I told you so... this continuation of wikidramah was why I closed that thread"

I have to reply that although the drama is a rather distressing spectacle, I'm glad I re-opened it. Betsy really would have left, if so many people hadn't effectively vindicated her, by their support, and she would have had bitter feelings about how she was treated here for years to come. Re-opening the thread allowed that support to be expressed, and prevented a wholly innocent editor from being driven off the project by having false accusations in effect upheld against her, by your effectively saying the matter didn't warrant correction, in your close of the thread.

With respect, I'd instead say that a more responsible use of that extra bit the community has lent you would have been to simply block Red Stone Arsenal, as an obvious sock. Or failing that, to block OhanaUnited and make his unblock conditional on a strikethrough of his very aggressive and mistaken attack. Either step would have ended the drama, even if your block had been overturned (very unlikely) and would also have "officially" asserted Betsy's innocence, as was only right. If you think the accusations didn't matter, you might like to have a look at my opinion on why they did matter and couldn't reasonably be ignored.

Btw, I suppose you've noticed that OhanaUnited has been laying low while all this has gone on, after he started the process? When a simple apology that everyone who's looked at the issue says he owes could have ended it at any time? That's been contemptible behavior, in my opinion. He made his exit right after the first person asked if he'd strike through his comments, and has been in hiding ever since, even after a WMF Trustee asked him on his talk page to apologize. ( He saw that message, based on the timing of it's having been posted, and on his few edits subsequent to it. ) If it were up to me, I'd pull him from SPI, at the absolute least. The community needs to be able to have an especially high degree of confidence in the integrity and good judgment of people who work in that area, and he's given us every reason to withdraw that confidence.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "responsible use of the bit", I've not used my admin tools during any of this, iirc. Red Stone Arsenal was apparently already checkusered and came up clear before the SPI that kicked off all of this - do you have other clear behavioural evidence that this account is being used abusively? They've also not edited since 17 May.

I don't feel I have the consensus to make a block on OhanaUnited, especially now that the offence in question is stale. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I'm quite a WP:CIVIL hardliner, but even I'm not going to go out on that limb. We also can't block someone for not apologising for something - sometimes we just have to let it drop and hope that the warnings are enough to avoid a repeat. Isn't him "lying low" for a bit a good thing? Wouldn't you be more annoyed if he'd gone straight back to SPI clerking and made similar comments about other filers? If OhanaUnited has shown a pattern of this kind of behaviour then an RfC/U could be appropriate if there is evidence of trying to resolve the issues that are presented. If he is not living up to the expectations of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Clerks, then this could be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks or checkuser-l@lists.wikimedia.org, though an isolated incident is unlikely to result in him being removed as a clerk.

I don't actually believe that Betsy was going to leave (having seen enough seasoned Wikipedians threaten to retire), but then we can't re-run history, can we? Sometimes shutting down threads is the best option, even if those who are emotionally invested in the thread feel slighted. I do feel that reopening it gave extra legs to a spat that had ended. I might have been wrong, but then I'm only one admin and it didn't require any tools to revert my action. Fences&Windows 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As an extra thought, I've made a comment at the SPI page that started all this to state that Betsythedevine was not abusing SPI. Not the same as a strikethrough, but hopefully enough to neutralise anyone linking to the page as "evidence". Fences&Windows 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comment on the SPI thread, F&W, that was really kind and helpful. And thanks to Ohio for so much advocacy on my behalf -- I am feeling much better now thanks to all your kindness and the kindness of others, and I really don't want to see Ohana or anybody else blocked as any kind of punishment for creating unhappy hurt feelings that are now receding into the past. Ohana (I am sure) thought he was right in what he said when he said it. But now with this recent comment by F&W on the SPI page, I would be quite happy to see it close, and see the third-opinion ANI close as well. betsythedevine (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that comment, F & W. As I believe kids used to say back in the 1980's, "that was righteous, dude". Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Back. Fences&Windows 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens

At Cowboys & Aliens (film), Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) has restored his draft of the "Marketing" section, but it is shorter this time. Length is no longer an issue, but proseline and indiscriminate mentioning and detailing of posters and trailers still remain a problem. Is his behavior considered improved or not? I doubt that there's much attention on the article, so I feel like he's always going to push his draft in some form, and I don't want to edit war with him. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Situation was resolved for now. Altitude2010 was blocked for a week. We'll see if he comes back. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch

As someone who has edited the CounterPunch article in the past, you might want to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at MorelMWilliam's talk page.
Message added 11:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

_morelMW^illiam 11:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to fix page move

Perhaps you can help: I was trying to move a new AfC article from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Defining equation (physics) to Defining equation (physics), and I accidentally copied/pasted the text, rather than Move the page (which would give the article creator credit in the article history). I'm trying to figure out how to get the Defining equation (physics) article deleted so I can do the move properly. What process should I follow to get the article deleted? I put a template in the article as follows:

{{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = |timestamp = 20110620233001 }}

But it looks like that may take 7 days for the deletion to happen. I was hoping for a process that would take just a few hours. Any ideas? --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fences&Windows 23:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks ... I'll be more careful next time. --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's really simple. For future reference: Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Fences&Windows 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Another sock puppet

He, i found another sock puppet for User:Jacurek, this time it is User:Handjokingme -Xraig (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I can't move myself to care about those article titles. Fences&Windows 22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Then you are a most fortunate person. I may have to make you my role model, to avoid being institutionalized. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied

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

-- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Battle of Canton

Sorry, no understand. If you wish me do, please use Japanese or Chinese. I'm en-0.

• 還是無法理解你的話，如果繼續使用英語那我可能不懂。
• 申し訳ございません。意味がたいてい了解できませんから、ずっと英語を話していればまた分からないになる事です。ちょっと考えてください。--俠刀行 (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

不会说就是不会说，没好争辩。看不懂en-0？--俠刀行 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I Love Your Userpage

Came by to say thanks for your much better edit on Gil Birmingham's birthdate, and got stuck on your userpage, laughing my ass off. You rock. MinervaK (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It strikes again

It strikes once again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.114.34.154 --Xraig (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward A. McCabe

Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Geier

Hi, I see that in this edit you turned the page into a compliant dab page, but a lot of useful encyclopedia content, with sources, got lost in the process. I've created stubs for 3 ships and the Geier Indians, and moved most of the content of the old page to Geier (surname) which seems its best place - making notes on talk pages and edit summaries to preserve the edit history of the content. I can see that the page as it stood in November was not a proper dab page, but it seems a pity to lose so much long-standing and encyclopedic content (OK some of it is a bit thin on sources, but not deletion-worthy.) Thought I'd let you know, anyway - I've also left a note on the talk page of the creator and main editor of the page, but they last edited in January so don't seem to be a regular. PamD (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I did look to see whether the content was salvageable at the time and didn't think it was. In particular the "Geier Indians" seem to be a myth/mangled history and not a notable group, from what I recollect of it. It only seems to be referred to by that one website. So not a great decision to create that article. Most of Geier (surname) looks like junk, don't see why you want to resurrect that bag of original research and waffle. You also removed "People with the surname of Geier" and didn't add it into that awful "Set index". You didn't really think this through, did you? Cut-and-paste editing like that isn't very inspiring, try a bit harder. Fences&Windows 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it through, though thanks for spotting that in rearranging the content I'd lost a small group of persons with the surname - now added to the surname page, enhanced with dates and descriptions. They don't belong in the dab page if there is a surname page, but if they did belong then they should have the heading "Persons with the surname Xxxx" and be below the other dab entries - see MOS:DABSUR. PamD (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete of London riots breaking news page

I take it you agreed with the speedy keep? Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you have offered a local press source from Bromley so you needn't answer the above. Can you do me a favour and add this "{{Delrevafd|date=2011 August 9}}" to the Afd page that you locked.

Thanks, Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging Eon Sinclair

Hi Fences and windows! Regarding a very old merge proposal of yours from December 2009... It seems the discussion never really gained much momentum. Would it be a bit too bold of me to return in a few days and simply redirect the Eon Sinclair article? Its only reference basically just confirms that he's a band member... and the rest of its unreferenced content is probably a bit too crufty to merge. What do you think?  -- WikHead (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some old stuff. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah well. Two more quotes: "Imagine an impassioned triceratops mating with a steam turbine, while off to the side Daft Punk and the Bee Gees beat each other to death with skillets and spatulas. Imagine the sound that would make. Just try. BrokeNCYDE is kind of like that, except it also makes you want to jab your thumbs into your eyeballs and gargle acid."[6]; "A snotty, ADD-riddled batch of Auto-Tuned crunkcore, capped by the single “Teach Me How to Scream” and the roof-raising “Da House Party.” But the trendy haircut-sporting cyberpunks are at their cringe-inducing worst on the painfully embarrassing ballad “My Gurl” and the bad reggae of “High Timez.” And it doesn’t get any more suburban wanksta than the X-rated druggy banter of “Money Hungry Hoe,” a nightmarish mix of the Jonas Brothers and Lil Wayne."[7] Fences&Windows 01:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm afraid that the writer for the Warsaw Business Journal is not really a music critic, I guess, because I'd love to put that quote in, actually. The Boston Herald link strikes me as totally legit. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect that the Warsaw Business Journal's blog was going to be great source :) - but the quote was too good to not share! Fences&Windows 23:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Right on; thanks again. Listen, OliverTwisted left me a note on my talk page about that quote I removed, the one y'all were talking about on the talk page if I remember correctly, and I responded with a challenge. Perhaps you don't mind taking it up. Haha, my semi-naked two-year old came and joined me on the patio with her motorcycle--I'm logging off, since this is too much fun. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Golden Banana

I notice you de-prodded this; I've raised it on the talk page if you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)