Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Fæ | 2012 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:37, 10 November 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Fæ/2010.← Previous edit Revision as of 16:17, 10 November 2010 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Thank you: new sectionNext edit →
Line 288: Line 288:
I removed the inaccurate word "exonerated" and explained the reason on the article talk page. I removed the name of the complainant in a case of sexual harassment, also explained on the talk page. There are full references to reputable sources within the discussion. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I removed the inaccurate word "exonerated" and explained the reason on the article talk page. I removed the name of the complainant in a case of sexual harassment, also explained on the talk page. There are full references to reputable sources within the discussion. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Replied on the article talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) :Replied on the article talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for your detailed and explanatory edit summary at page ], as opposed to the inappropriate edit summary in the revert by the prior user that removed the same material. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- ''']''' (]) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:17, 10 November 2010

User talk:Fæ/2012/F/head

Archiving icon
Archives
2010

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 &aelig;

Jim Lemley photo

Permission was granted via email. I re-uploaded the file. & to answer your comment on all rights being reserved; fair use overrides that. However, it is Misplaced Pages policy to not allow for fair use interpretation of the law. There is a big difference between Misplaced Pages policy and the law. My source: I am a paralegal for an entertainment law firm. Veritasenlumine (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we are in agreement per my article talk page comments. Looking at File:Jim-Lemley-pic-1.jpg you need to follow the Commons:OTRS process (i.e. copying your email to Misplaced Pages/Commons for verification), this gives a ticket reference so that everyone can see it was real, not just made up by an anonymous user.
Please use the OTRS process and add an Commons:template:OTRS pending template in order to avoid the photo being tagged for deletion again. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I redact my information, because I don't want people to see my email. If this is an issue, I will seek a photo without copyright. Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have posted your email somewhere by accident you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT who will suppress details when reasonable.
If you are referring to the OTRS process, you need not worry as the point of that process is that any information you email to them will be kept as a confidential verifiable record but not be published in the public domain (just given an anonymous ticket number showing it was verified when received). If you redact basic information then it might be rejected (I'm not 100% sure about this, it may be worth sending in a redacted version and asking them; after all what matters is the copyright holder details are credible rather than yours). The OTRS guidance above explains it better than I can. Note, I'm not an admin or bureaucrat so I have no authority to do such things and the folks who join and administer the OTRS scheme are quite rigorously vetted. Fæ (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added a note to the image about this thread, please do not forget to add the OTRS pending and delete my notice on the image page once you have emailed in. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble, because I want to send over the email to OTRS, but I can't find where to do that. Could you help to send me the address so that I may forward the email to them? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See this page on Commons. The email address is written in the declaration of consent box. Take your time as it can take ages for OTRS to process tickets so you really want to get it right first time. Fæ (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so lastly, does the photo need to be removed, pending OTRS response? Veritasenlumine (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be okay now. Based on the chat here I have added the right template for OTRS pending and removed the unsourced tag. If OTRS has received and eventually accepts your email there should be nothing more to do. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

St. Kevin's College, Melbourne

Hi

I am mentioned in the St. Kevin's College Toorak page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/St._Kevin's_College,_Melbourne

under science and medicine.

Science and Medicine Dr Chris Wright Director of the intensive care unit at Monash Medical Centre, also an associate professor of medicine at Monash University

I think (apologies if I am in error) that you may have added or edited the "citation needed".

What's required?

I am an Associate Professor at Monash University, and I was the Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Monash Medical Centre. I have been appointed to a full time academic position at the University.

I really don't care if I am on the SKC page or not!

Thanks for your advice

Chris Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.132.121 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Moro (chocolate bar)

Hello. I'd forgotten I'd even edited that page, to be honest! I think I'm right in saying that back in 2006 there wasn't a clearly-defined way to tag that sort of photo, so I just stuck PD on to make it clear that I wasn't claiming any rights. Of course I'll happily change to a more appropriate tag for the photo I took - but which should it be, FUR or text-logo? I'd be inclined to say the first, since it's not only the logo that's shown. Loganberry (Talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FUR would do it, though text-logo is sufficient but probably challenge-able. Fæ (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Northern Club (Auckland)

Hi Fae - thanks for taking a look at The Northern Club (Auckland) - you tagged it for speedy deletion within nano-seconds of its first preview; we've got a few more details in place now (and will contine to build the page) - would be great if you could remove the speedy deltion tag. Thanks Rob.

Plymouth

Hi. This is a chaotic mess isn't it. I've even been insulted and accused of operating a Brit cabal! Talk about gaming the system! I've done what I can at Talk:Plymouth and totalled up the !votes with the possibility that the consensus is even stronger if one reads closely the comments that are not preceded by a declaration in bold type. I can't close it myself because I'm involved and I'm not an admin, so I've asked a neutral uninvolved admin if he or another one can come in and close it formally for us. I'll mov on now and see what's happened at the others. I think Floydian just does not know his way around Misplaced Pages policy yet, but if there are any more personal attacks from the purple one, it will be the first time I've ever sent someone to go and wait outside the headmaster's door.--Kudpung (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been steering clear somewhat, the discussions being a bit circular, tendentious and more than a little disruptive. However you may wish to look at my last comment at Talk:Dover where a similar move request is winding down and I have added some relevant context. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Autodesk Toxik

Fæ, I noticed you marked Autodesk Toxik as not being notable. I added three more third party sources. Is this enough, or would you like me to track down more? Thanks, Matthewrbowker (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The main relevant notability guideline is WP:PRODUCT which relies on the criteria of WP:GNG. Consequently there must be evidence that the product itself is notable independent of the notability of the producing company. Taking the 3 new sources added one at a time:
  1. http://macanimationpro.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=174488 - This is a review by Maruyama based on a forthcoming product/sales presentation given at toxik2008. As a standard product review it does little to establish notability.
  2. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20091022006771/en/Autodesk-Launches-Autodesk-Toxik-2008-Software-Feature - This appears to be a press release by Autodesk, Inc, it would not be suitable as an independent source.
  3. http://resources.autodesk.com/med/Autodesk_Toxik - This is a support notice on the manufacturer's website which adds little for evidence of notability.
Based on these new sources, the improvement notice should stay and the fact that you have researched the article indicates that the 'significant impact' needed to demonstrate notability is unlikely to be found in the near future. Perhaps you should consider performing the suggested article merge? Fæ (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deletion notices on Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca pages

You have tagged for deletion two articles I wrote, and I request that you remove these deletion tags for the following reasons. Perhaps your idea of what makes a lawyer notable may normally be accurate, but it is incorrect when applied to Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca because of the specific type of work they do (plaintiffs-oriented class action). Plaintiff’s lawyers have been identified as the most influential players in this type of litigation, and disproportionately so. The Supreme Court pointed this out in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit. Congress had occasion to say so, too (See the House of Representatives Conference Report. No. 104-369). And finally, The guide for judges on the subject even says, “Attorneys representing classes are in a position to control the litigation process far more than attorneys representing individual clients” (see http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ClassGde.pdf/$file/ClassGde.pdf). This is exactly the kind of work that Mr. Cuneo and Mr. LaDuca have become prominent for doing.

Furthermore, a great deal is said about Mr. Cuneo and Mr. LaDuca aside from the prominent cases they worked on. Mr. Cuneo worked as part of President Carter’s Federal Trade Commission and the United States Congress. Together, he and Mr. LaDuca have represented millions of clients in some of the farthest-reaching pro-consumer litigation currently happening. I can speak from experience that the millions of people they have personally represented, as well as law students who study this area of law, would consider them notable.

Therefore, I would say that the reason cited in the original deletion tags is simply inaccurate in this case. I ask that you please remove them promptly. If the tags are not removed by November 5, I will remove them.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TapFwdLaw (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles about lawyers are often problematic. Being part of a team of lawyers involved in notable cases does not necessarily confer notability on all or any members of such legal teams and lawyers tend to have many public records with their names on but this does not necessarily provide sources to demonstrate significant impact outside of their field (press interest in the individual rather than just the legal cases would be needed). These particular examples have the additional issue of appearing to be in the format of résumés (including large amounts of career detail rather than sticking to personal significant impact on the historic record) which along with an apparent unresolved conflict of interest is a red flag for reviewers. Though there is a string of notable legal cases in these articles, it is not readily apparent that the named lawyer was either the sole named representative or that their company was the sole agency involved. There may be a debate to be had for each article but I do not see that WP:BIO has been unambiguously addressed, would you prefer I escalate to AfD (see WP:DELETE) which gives the opportunity for wide community discussion? Fæ (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Jacquelyn Ottman

Hey Fae- I have added a bunch of new sources- can you reverse your "weak delete?" Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green31569 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at all the sources as examining an initial random sample of 3 (out of 11) they were unsuitable being an interview with the subject, an advert for a book and an article that appears co-written by the subject, consequently all failed to be independent. I should have more time in a few hours and will give some feedback unless there is a key source that is strong enough for me to change my opinion in the AfD. Note, I may upgrade my opinion to a full delete if these sources are inadequate as there should be a reasonable expectation of addressing notability in the near future in order to retain a biography article (as per WP:BIO). Fæ (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Copy of feedback left on article talk page

Based on a request on my talk page, the associated deletion discussion and an IRC conversation, I have reviewed each source in the current article to assess if they demonstrate notability as defined by WP:BIO and are reliable sources to meet the guidance of WP:BLP. The 11 sources are assessed below.

  1. "Interview" (.html). The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ? This is an interview with Ottman in a journal so it is a reliable source. However it does little beyond re-hashing her profile as an expert in this field and does little to establish why she would be considered notable in the sense of impact on the historic record.
  2. "Read Excerpts" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This is a book advert website which mentions Ottman as a "Green marketing expert" once and would be considered a tangential mention as it does not discuss her notability. It is not a reliable source.
  3. "Green Marketing Myopia and the SunChips Snacklash" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This is a joint blog entry by Ottman with Mark Eisen. It is not an independent reliable source.
  4. "SB'07 Speakers" (.html). Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This is a list of speakers at a 2007 trade conference. Ottman is one of many, it does not make any of the participants notable for an encyclopaedia.
  5. "Jacquelyn Ottman" (.html). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This is Ottman's blog, it is not a reliable source to establish her notability.
  6. "How to Market Goods As Environmentally Friendly" (.pdf). The Wall Street Journal Center For Entrepreneurs Startup Journal. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ Ottman's website has this pdf file. It is a paper by P. Thomas though it is unclear if this journal has articles published by the WSJ or not. The paper quotes Ottman as a sales consultant but does not establish why she would be considered worth quoting.
  7. "LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FORUM" (.pdf). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ These are minutes of a meeting of a forum for the Department of Agriculture. Ottman took part by asking some questions of the panel, however of itself it does not explain why she would be notable.
  8. "Jacquelyn Ottman" (.html). Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This appears to be an agency website with a very brief profile. It is not independent and not a reliable source.
  9. "True Green?" (.html). Adweek. Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ Article in Adweek where Ottman is mentioned once for a brief quote. It does not establish her notability.
  10. "Sustainable Brands Conference Program of Events" (.pdf). Retrieved November 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ A conference agenda which shown Ottman was one of many participants at this industry event.
  11. "Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia". Environment. Heldref Publications. Retrieved June 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    ✗ This is Ottman's own list of articles on her own website, it is not independent.

In conclusion, the many sources recently added to the article are mostly a result of a marketing expert using the media to generate publicity for their own consultancy business. After striking off the compromised sources due to not being independent or otherwise unreliable, there is nothing that can demonstrate the impact on the historic record needed for encyclopaedic notability. There may be grounds for an article about the company rather than the person on the basis that some of the consulting contracts claimed might be notable, however the criteria of WP:ORG would need to be met. Fæ (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Fae- a lot of people have been helping the Jacquelyn Ottman entry- Is it up to your standard yet? If so please change your delete! Thanks. Green31569 (Green31569 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

No, I think people are being mislead by published self-promotional marketing material. I see little in the way of independent quality sources establishing her notability. Unfortunately easy availability of publications (even self-published) tends to ensure a BLP is created rather than demonstrable impact on the historic record where the printed records are not available in a simple Google search. Fæ (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
{Green31569 (talk)}Okay-So is there any suggestions you have to make it better? She is indeed notable, so please advise on the best way to make this clear and informative on her page. comment added by Green31569 —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC).
Yes, find independent reliable sources that confirm her notability and are more significant than tangential mentions, meeting agendas or compromised rehashed PR material. Fæ (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey again Fae- you are right, it is indeed hard to find the types of sources you are talking about for a biopage. Do other people with bio's run in to this problem on wikipedia? Could you maybe show me some examples of other biopages and biosources that are legit? If you check out this page: http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=3192 and click/expand "praise" you can see all the other experts that attest to Jacquie Ottman's notability. I know that this can't be used on wikipedia, but at least you can see that she is notable and maybe give me a little more direction so I can try harder to find the appropriate source material. Thanks again! {Green31569 (talk)} Green31569 —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

BMB GROUP

Can I ask for you help? I do not know how to link the references to certain topics above?

BMB Group

Think it's ready to remove the prod yet? It's pretty spammy, and the edits indicate COI, but it's no longer a CFORK. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BMB Group

How can i insure this wiki pages is not deleted. I am trying to comply with the requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudiartexpert (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, based on your re-writing I have removed both the PROD and recent speedy deletion request. The article has reasonable sources and is not a blatant advert so I think that deletion would require wider discussion first. If you keep on improving the article, deletion should be unlikely to happen. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Musicians Institute

Why do you keep returning MI's article, that is based on facts, to an ad for MI? Why is MI even on here? It's just a business that teaches music. It's not a real college that is respeted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZingaZingaZinga (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Edit-warring is not acceptable for any reason. Fæ (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you concider it a war when someone is vandaiziing an article, because they don't like that the facts don't show favortism? Facts are facts, please research the facts. Why shoot the messager? This is why real publications use experts in the field they are writing on. Just because the facts don't show MI to be all that great doesn't make them wrong! You are either for facts or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As indicated above, there is a current discussion at Talk:Musicians Institute, I see no benefit in repeating the same discussion here. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran Indian movie gross collection.

Hi, I recently saw you asking for sources for gross of this indian movie Enthiran. I would like to give you some.

http://timesofindia.hotklix.com/link/Entertainment/Hollywood/Endhiran-Robot-Records-collection-318-crores-after-3-weeks-Online-Live-Real

http://thatstamil.oneindia.in/movies/specials/2010/10/enthiran-box-office-worldwide-rajini.html

Check out the additional verifiability of these sites here, -- http://liveandreal.info/about -- http://liveandreal.info/contact-us -- http://www.oneindia.in/contact.html

The second source is in - Tamil language. Sorry If you cant read I do not know how to make you go through it. But trust me it is one of the most reliable/ verifiable source. May be you can allow any administrator to read, if he knows Tamil.

I want the update to be made on the article based on these. Need your help also. Thanks.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Note, it may take a day for me to get back to these. Fæ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
After examining these, I am not happy about the context or source material. The hotklix.com hosted article uses identical text to a version of the Misplaced Pages article, even using the same style (meaningless for this article) footnote numbers. Consequently it fails WP:CIRCULAR. If you wish to debate these further, I suggest you do so on the article talk page where some Tamil speakers may be able to help out. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you quoted "the information fails WP:CIRCULAR as http://oneindia.in may have copied it straight from an unverified earlier version from Misplaced Pages." I got your point here. But my friend this web page oneindia.in on enthiran was published on Oct 17, 2010.
If you prove that before this date there was a page showing 318 crore, then what you say is acceptable. But it clearly shows after this webpage published date ONLY enthiran article was uploaded in wikipedia. (Infact it was very FIRST done by Bala1985ji (talk contribs) on 02:13, 19 October 2010)
So citing it was copied from wikipedia to oneindia webpage is not correct. I hope you get me. Infact this is the most reliable page and trusted sites. Importantly it clearly states all facts, even though it is in Tamil language. So it should be accepted.
Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see you like oneindia.in, however it is a portal. Portals regurgitate news items from other sources and have little in the way of editorial control or responsibility for their content. If this exact figure on income is correct, easily making the film in the top ten of highest grossing films ever produced in India, then there should be many quality sources to support the claim made on oneindia.in. Unfortunately I do not find any as pointed out on the article talk page. I recommend any further discussion on sources in on the article talk page so that this is not just my opinion versus yours. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran

I reverted back the group citations. I support WP:CITEKILL. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Twixt now and Sunrise

you set this for deleteion saying that it may not be in filming already i thi;nk is the understanding?? well imdb.com shows the film actively filming and i saw filming with my own eyes and a short 15 second shakey video segment. coppola and kilmer have been in my town all week filming this movie. new york times has confirmed the film and has imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braitostees (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please first read the reference guideline before arguing against the notice. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" you have yet to identify a reliable source that states principal photography has started. Fæ (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Dear Fæ, I really can't understand why you keep deleting the information which I add in the article of Elena Satine! Your changes doesn't make any sense. what kind of proof are you talking about? Go to IMDB and see. --Vaxxxo (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As per the big notice added at the top of the article, IMDB is not considered adequate as a source for personal information. The site has no clear editorial policy and accepts user submissions which may not be accurate. If you wish to discuss IMDB as a source I suggest you raise a request at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

J kyle

Hi. Could you tell me why you reverted my edit as vandalism? Thanks. 83.32.244.87 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In this edit you said "(somewhat incredibly)" which fails the guidance of Neutral point of view. Fæ (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so that may fail POV. That is not vandalism. Could you also tell me why you removed the fully valid internal link (now re-inserted by me)? I also think you should remove the vandalism warning on my talk page.83.32.244.87 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced the general vandalism user warning with a specific vandalism user warning relating to NPOV. As for unpicking your edit to choose which bits might be good, this is not required when reverting apparent vandalism. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I've referenced the lie detector stuff as pseudo-science. Your action was clearly an over-reaction. There was no vandalism (apparent or otherwise) and there was no enormous edit to unpic so leaving the valid part wouldn't have been too much trouble. Putting a warning on my page was insulting.83.32.244.87 (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edit was blatantly non-neutral and unsourced. If you feel the standard mild and civil rubic of {{Uw-vandalism1}} or {{Uw-npov1}} is insulting, I suggest you take it up on the talk pages of those templates. If wish to complain about my anti-vandalism activities, I suggest you follow one of the standard Dispute resolution processes as discussing this further seems pointless. Fæ (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
My issue is with your calling something "vandalism" when it clearly was not. I am not complaining about the language of the template - I am complaining about your action. What I am complaining about is your attitude.
It was my impression that "assume good faith" was one of the most important guidelines here - and that is something which you have signally failed to do. I suspect that the Dispute Resolution Process to which you refer would a a sledgehammer to a nut. But I'll have a look at it in case it covers this case. Thanks for the link.83.32.244.87 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page apperance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 16, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 16, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch 06:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne Tigress

The Hoxne Hoard is the largest hoard of late Roman silver and gold discovered in Britain. Found by a metal detectorist in the village of Hoxne in Suffolk, England on 16 November 1992, the hoard consists of 14,865 Roman gold, silver and bronze coins from the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and approximately 200 silver tableware and gold jewellery items. The hoard is now on permanent display in the British Museum and is valued at £4.5 million. The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, which coincides with the end of Britain as a Roman province. The Hoxne Hoard contains several rare and important objects, including a gold body-chain and silver-gilt pepper-pots. The Hoxne Hoard is also of particular archaeological significance because it was excavated by professional archaeologists with the items largely undisturbed and intact. The find has helped to improve the relationship between metal detectorists and archaeologists, and influenced a change in English law regarding finds of treasure. (more...)

User:The Houglass

I've removed the text on the talk page (above your warning) as it appears to be a copyvio. I've deleted it from User talk:Sam-Crucifix as well. Looks like some campaign is under way... Peridon (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes remove advert-type text from a user talk page (when a blatant WP:USER violation), probably should have collapsed or removed that one too as they get in the way of discussion. I'll keep them on my watchlist for the moment. Thanks for the heads-up. Fæ (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged The Hourglass's userpage csd copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
JamesB got it while I was typing the above... Peridon (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Evans deletion explained on talk page,

I removed the inaccurate word "exonerated" and explained the reason on the article talk page. I removed the name of the complainant in a case of sexual harassment, also explained on the talk page. There are full references to reputable sources within the discussion. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.114.57 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your detailed and explanatory edit summary at page Tom Cruise, as opposed to the inappropriate edit summary in the revert by the prior user that removed the same material. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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