User talk:Fæ/2014

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fæ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am considering a few edits over the next couple of months, so have decided to un-mark my account as retired. The idea of editing the English Wikipedia is still a challenge, hopefully some people might find reasons to be positively encouraging for the limited number of edits I am likely to be making, as well as those queuing up to find reasons to be unpleasant or unkind at my expense. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you mention YRC being blocked on your apology sub-page?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This block, created after the Arbcom case against me, is related to harassment by Youreallycan. This seems a relevant context for understanding my apology from a historiological viewpoint. Is there anything you would like to see corrected or added to the footnote? --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you were the recipient of the e-mail in question? If not, then you should not mention it on your user page, though even if you were I do not think it would be appropriate to mention per WP:POLEMIC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have said no such thing.

Information available as block logs do not fit the description at the guideline you have linked to, in particular:

• The note is not "Very divisive", it is just a statement of the block log and I would be unclear as who it divides.
• The note is not "offensive material", if it were then I doubt that it would be reproduced in the block log.
• The note is "related to encyclopedia editing", if my apology and its context is relevant to editing.

If you believe my apology should be deleted from Wikipedia as being irrelevant, then that would be a matter to raise elsewhere as I do not understand the rationale for doing so.

Thanks for your concern but if you wish to pursue this, could you do so somewhere other than my talk page, such as by raising a deletion request against it? --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the apology page as a whole, but the mention of the block would be covered under "recording of perceived flaws", which would only be acceptable if you intend to use it for some form of dispute resolution. Simply removing the mention of the block would be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do something more useful than fabricating upsetting drama on my talk page immediately after I ended my long retirement from this project. A single block log entry is a statement of fact, not a perceived flaw. Fæ (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright - I take that back. I'm sure there were lots of folks in Ashkelon who knew better than to beat away a gift-horse for a lack of orthodontic work, and I don't want to be racist. But what do you call people who say that it's a bad thing that someone contributed countless images to Commons because a few didn't have categories? If that Commons bot that nags you about forgetting categories were a flesh-and-blood (or rather tin-and-chrome) Robbie that knocked on the door instead of leaving comments on my talk page, I'd have emptied a gun into it by now. The lack of gratitude from some people for what you did do is remarkable.

I really wonder if, with all your skills for collecting and processing images, going to events, and running bots, you might not do far better spending your time setting up a Wiki or some other kind of site to deal with the kind of material that you pointed out is in short supply regarding Women In Science. I'm all too sure that even if someone started articles on all 25 professors Wikipedia would delete half of them for being non-notable. It would be a powerful thing in academia if someone started a project with the intention of giving deep and sympathetic coverage to all the professors of the world, or at least the UK to start, that combined contributions from subjects and others to develop robust well-researched profiles. While every prof has some sort of page, many are rudimentary; lab websites are still by and large back at the Web 1.0 stage where people rolled their own. For many personal websites that awful "Hot Or Not" site now known as Facebook managed to vacuum them up, and true, that wasn't a good thing, but maybe you could do better by the world than that creep Zuckerberg. Imagine if instead of debating, arguing, watching your stuff get deleted, pleading, and being put down for what you did, you were just busy making a resource the world could value. Then when Wikipedia came around asking to reuse it you could tell them to come back in, oh, 2015, maybe later, once you write up some restrictions. Wnt (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Fae, I've just come across Louise Howard (psychiatrist) while stub-sorting. Please remember, if you create an article at a disambiguated title like this, to provide a link from the undisambiguated title: here I've added a hatnote at Louise Howard, sometimes it needs an entry added to a dab page. Probably just an oversight as you're an experienced editor, but I worry about these entries which can't easily be found, thinking about the reader who'd arrive at the other LH and assume there wasn't an article about your one, or the editor who'd create a new article accidentally at Louise Howard (academic), etc. There are a lot of these unlinked article ... which is why when stub-sorting I usually check. PamD 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I used to do a fair amount of dabs but after being away from editing for so long have got rusty. I knew either someone else would improve this, or I would return to it in a few weeks.

I have approached KCL about releasing some portraits for women professors in the IoP, if that happens it'll attract people to improving them a bit more. --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Fæ, thanks for creating Sabine Landau!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add some categories to the article. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

<Sigh> I will drop a colleague a note and hopefully have an email for OTRS shortly.

I've already emailed Jonathan about attending the editathon at the Petrie museum and hopefully will bump into you soon. (Not alas at Wikimania - it clashes with my honeymoon).

--Mr impossible (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania can't compete with a honeymoon. Welcome to married bliss.

I'm due to be part of the UCL week, so hopefully things will coincide. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am at the NMMC editathon today. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Dear Fae, thanks very much for running the outreach event in Falmouth. Especially with the extra journey hassle now that the railway line to Cornwall has been washed out. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was nice to have the chance to spend time with some very interesting GLAM people who share our vision of open knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Thakur Dal Singh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thakur Dal Singh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakur Dal Singh (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sitush (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Sitush:. Please take these up with the original creator, Pkandhal (talk · contribs). This was such a long time ago, I no longer remember the circumstances and don't really want to spend my volunteer time investigating them without having sysop access to the history. --Fæ (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's no big deal. The notices were placed automatically by Twinkle. I know who the real creator is, although I'm confused as to how you recreated the first of these two articles within hours of them being marked for deletion at an AfD in which you participated. I doubt that I'll ever get to the bottom of that because I don;t have the tools. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is quite normal for a friendly admin to userfy deleted articles on request if there is an expectation that the contributor intends to make a good faith attempt to address the issues. Were I still an admin, I would still be a friendly one. --Fæ (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Back in February 2011 you PRODded this article, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and am letting you know in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fae. Any chance of a London-based project for Wiki Loves Pride 2014? An edit-a-thon, a photo project, etc.? No pressure, just curious. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, but it would be entirely subject on my Arbcom appeal against an edit restriction which I shall attempt this month. I have been helping with GLAM related and women-focused editathons, hence the recent biographies I have created, but I had to walk away from an opportunity for an LGBT editathon during UK diversity month (there has never been a UK based LGBT editathon), and I had to give up any idea of a personal project to improve articles and media related to suffragettes in advance of Women's Day as this was interpreted by some Arbcom members as "sexuality". It would have been neat to have a successful DYK in place.

I am saddened that an indefinite restriction introduced after my controversial ban, is stopping me from proposing funding for LGBT related content creation projects, approaching LGBT archives to open up their collections to the benefit of Wikipedia, or even applying for jobs in related open-knowledge projects. I have some hope that might change in time to make a difference for Wiki Loves Pride, but I do not have the luxury of being able to make any promises.

The days when I was in the top 400 contributors on Wikipedia and had huge fun helping others, seems like much longer than two years ago. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I realised as soon as I got to the talk page, which I know I should have read first, and restored immediately. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am taking part in the Women's day editathon in the Petrie Museum today. So any article I am working on may be contributed to by new users in this context.

• Margaret Stefana Drower
• Elinor Wight Gardner

--Fæ (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As featured in Wikipedia Signpost on 12th March. --Fæ (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi fæ! Would you share a code to create articles on SSSI in wales with me? Thanks Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If I get a bit further with the pywikipediabot application, I'll tidy the source code and publish it on-wiki. It just piggy-backs on Robin's AWB code, which in turn relies on a spreadsheet of data. At the moment it is not terribly smart. --Fæ (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fae. :) I just wanted to let you know that the tag you've placed at Talk:Norwegian-British Chamber of Commerce, Template:OTRS permission, is for files. For articles, we use Template:ConfirmationOTRS, which includes a field for license. That's important, since, of course, files include a license parameter in themselves. I've fixed this one, but wanted to point it out for future. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Over the years it is hard to keep track of these local working practices. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel you. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your name as the uploader of a lot of images from the Imperial War Museum archive. I've found a bunch of images that I'd like to upload, but am unsure about the appropriate permission tag. They are all listed as IWM non commercial license, but are pretty well all German photographs from WW! or earlier. Your advice would be very much appreciated. I'm sure that you'll be glad to know that I've found good homes for the Cody Michelin Cup biplane & Short Triple-Twin pictures that you recently uploaded- thanks! TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have some exemplar images to discuss, then I'll take a look. German photographs in the IWM archives are complex, for example if seized property during WWI/II then in the UK they are declared as public domain due to expired Crown Copyright, however this may not be recognized in other countries and so is not a suitable rationale for Commons. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Linked in User:TheLongTone/sandbox#iwm links, thanks.TheLongTone (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the first 3:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

For all 3, {{PD-old-70}} would be sufficient as the photographer is unknown. The dates range from 1905 to 1918 which makes them comfortably over 70. There are other rationales that may apply depending on whether the German state released these as part of an archive, however you would need better provenance than the IWM provides to work this out. --Fæ (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get busy! Some of the others are straightforward , btw.TheLongTone (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Request_for_clarification_.28January_2014.29 NE Ent 11:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I had no idea how this stuff worked. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fae. Many thanks for your message. I apologise that the issue of these photographs has become complicated. I myself have spent many hours trying to understand the copyright issues involved here and trying to find the best way of uploading them onto Wikimedia Commons. Let me try to explain:

1. There are two distinct types of images involved here: photographs of Ms O'Callaghan taken in 2011 by the professional Toronto photographer Andrew MacNaughten and images of the covers of her five solo albums released by the Marquis Classics label.

2. Ms O'Callaghan does, I believe, own the copyright of File:Patricia O'Callaghan.jpg and File:Patricia O'Callaghan (La Perla hosiery).jpg. However, the photographer who took the photographs, Andrew MacNaughten, is now deceased. Ms O'Callaghan assures me that, before he died, Mr MacNaughten assigned to her copyright of all the photographs he took of her. She does not, however, have documentary proof of this which seems to have made her hesitant to assert ownership. I personally do not believe this is important since in these unusual circumstances the photographs clearly do belong to her.

3. Although I am not certain about this, the copyright of the cover images of her five solo albums may technically belong to the recording label Marquis Classics. However, Ms O'Callaghan tells me that she was recently involved in a long and costly legal dispute with Marquis and has now severed all contact with the company.

4. I believe that Ms O'Callaghan herself is currently on holiday in Australia and she may, or may not, be responding to emails at the moment.

I appreciate you giving your attention to this issue and I am more than happy to answers any questions you may have and to share any information that I have.

Best regards Roger

Carlofantom (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll informally pick up on a few of these points and put a link to this conversation on Commons:Commons:OTRS/N, though if there are any statements you would like on record, I recommend setting these out by email so that they can be referenced on OTRS.

2. Andrew MacNaughten's copyrights are under the discretion of his estate. Should Ms O'Callaghan wish to make a legal statement, this should be on the understanding that copyright was transferred permanently to herself. A lack of evidence was the reason that a photograph failed verification in 2013, even though a statement was made at that time. I note that original quality photographs have not been supplied to OTRS, if these are available, then providing the original digital versions (with verifiable EXIF data) by email would be a means of gaining credible validation that the original files are in Ms O'Callaghan's possession. In the absence of additional validation such as this, then if documentation for a transfer of copyright were not arranged before MacNaughten's death, a representative of his estate needs to be asked to make a release. In terms of Ms O'Callaghan's presence on Wikipedia, the photographs are not irreplacable, so grounds such a fair use do not apply.
3. I am sorry to hear of a past legal dispute with the production company. As the master digital copies do not appear to be owned by Ms O'Callaghan, OTRS volunteers need to be cautious in claiming that lower quality versions taken from the website are verified based solely on a statement by Ms O'Callaghan. Album covers are often copyright of the production company rather than the artist as it is the production company that normally arranges and pays for the professional photography.
4. Please do not feel there is a time limit on these issues. Should an administrator chose to delete any of the images in question, they can be easily undeleted once the copyright release is verified.

--Fæ (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm reaching out to you on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee to request your input on the four proposals that have been submitted to the FDC in this round. The FDC reviews these proposals on behalf of the Wikimedia movement, as it is movement money that they spend, and in order to review them effectively we need to understand your perspective on them, and to ensure that any questions you have about them have been appropriately answered. The proposals are linked to from meta:Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#Proposals_for_review. Please provide your feedback through the talk pages for each proposal.

In particular, please take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan. As they have a projected budget of over $60 million (including the grants that they will provide to other movement entities), their plans need extra scrutiny by the community to make sure that they are spending the movement's money effectively.

We will also send you a message to ask you for your input in future rounds of the FDC. If you don't want to receive such messages, then please say so below.

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fae, I've been reviewing the recent situation with Kurtis and I'm am seriously considering blocking you for treating wikipedia as a battleground. At the moment, I'm going to settle for a verbose warning. You know I'm well aware of your history and situation - I've done a lot of investigation into it since I've been on the committee, firstly by taking the lead on finding a situation where you can be unbanned and more recently by looking into your editing history to see whether the committee should be relaxing your restrictions.

Yet, whilst I'd been focussing on where things can be relaxed, you've been returning to old habits. You see, your issue has never been with your editing, nor with the harassment you've received - both are issues, but not the crux of the matter. The issue at the heart of things is the way you attempt to deal with problems. This might be a quiet word to people behind the scenes, discrediting your opponents or over-zealously applying a policy - there are many techniques at manipulating situations out there and they're not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere.

For example, looking at this whole Kurtis situation - I won't go into whether you did try to subvert the committee, though I'm happy to debate the matter if you want to focus on that. What's more important is how you handled things over the past few days. I'll lay aside the fact that it happened on Arbcom pages and therefore Arbcom/Clerks should have been the first port of call, that's no big deal and I don't blame you for not thinking that would have been the place to go, it just would have stopped the escalation. As would talking to your friends, who would have offered you advice on how to handle the matter.

What I do take issue with is your application of BLP. The BLP policy is there for protection of living people and their families. It's basically a strengthening of other Wikipedia policies when they're related to BLPs. It is designed primarily for people who are likely to be harmed by Wikipedia but have not the knowledge to stop the harm. There are lots of other people it does affect, but that's where the spirit lies. What it doesn't allow is sanitising of biographies, control of content by the subject or anything like that.

Now, what you've done is taken comments made in the Wikipedia space, and attempted to control what is said there by invoking BLP. By letter of policy, you are not incorrect about the scope of BLP - though applying such a broad scope to BLP would affect every comment made about any Wikipedia editor and at the moment that's not how things work around here. Taking it to the BLP noticeboard and asking for "action", though, is threatening and inappropriate - especially when the user had already taken action in striking his comments. You were attempting to go above and beyond the normal Wikiquette, expecting full removal of comments. Comments which, like it or not, reflect the 2012 committee's thoughts on the matter.

Kurtis responded appropriately by striking his comments at your request. Insisting on their removal (against our guidelines) is an attempt at controlling his comments. Doing so at an administrative noticeboard (which includes the BLP noticeboard) appears to be an attempt to use bullying tactics to get your own way.

It's unsurprising that Kurtis felt aggrieved by this turn of events, leading to the ANI thread - again, I wish he'd come to a committee member or clerk. I was surprised to see you say "After giving an apology for your actions, you now appear to be deliberately working against WP:BLPTALK by finding new ways to publish your allegation on Wikipedia". That appears to be assigning bad faith motives to Kurtis' complaint, motives that I don't see there.

We discussed reducing drama when the committee unblocked you. You suggested that you would "... trust the community to judge what is suitable material to stay on Wikipedia or not, and if I find it upsetting, I'll just take an extended wiki-break and let others worry about it and advise me if I need to do anything." Your BLP/N request didn't trust others to make a judgement, it framed the situation over-broadly as a BLP issue, pouring lots of victimisation in to manipulate the outcome. That echoes the ARCA request, just days earlier.

Fae, behaviour like this needs to stop - otherwise you will not be able to play a part in building this encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 12:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this up.

I made a serious mistake in not asking the right people for advice on how to handle the issue. As I mentioned by email, I was a bit confused as to how to interpret policy and, to be honest, I cannot claim properly to understand Arbcom related process and policy even now. I am going to absorb and review your warning here and take a break from editing on Wikipedia to give it time.

This incident has left me disillusioned about how I can help this open knowledge project in the topics I know most about, and how I am likely to be seen and negatively represented by fellow Wikipedians in the future. I think I need some space to think about that before making any decisions about continuing and whether in the long term, this will just serve to make me more depressed, rather than returning to the enjoyable and exciting experience it was years ago. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't blame anyone for not getting Arbcom processes - they're convoluted and even I (a committee member) don't understand many. Really, you needn't worry about that small part of my comment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fae, it's good to see that you've been let out of chokey (a bit, anyway). Would you care to collaborate on improving Warren Cup to at least GA standard, and possibly FA if that's doable? I've been meaning to cover it for a while and it fits into the work I've been doing on and off concerning British Museum artefacts (Cyrus Cylinder, Standard of Ur, Guisborough Helmet, Lothair Crystal etc). Prioryman (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I worked on the Warren Cup back in 2010, many old friends have too. It would be a great one to work on as there are a number of excellent sources, some quite recent new publications. I have some photographs I might get around to uploading too. Unfortunately, though it is identified as Roman artwork, notably by the British Museum, a few sources dispute this, claiming a much later creation, possibly as late as the 18 20th century. Due to the technical issues in dating silverware, that you are probably aware of, it is unlikely that this will be resolved unless there is a detailed investigation funded in the future.

Arbcom's restriction to images of sexuality dating before 1,000AD, means that I probably should not add my photographs to the article as though this is probably a 1st century artwork, the dating has been challenged by some fringe sources. I'll have a think about it. The GWToolset is a priority on my time, but I'll check with my tame historian to see what sources are worth re-reviewing.

PS the Lothair Crystal has been put on display much more prominently in the BM. My photographs are being used in the current article (which came out rather well), but with new lighting and placement, it may be possible to arrange a higher quality photograph.

--Fæ (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am helping with the Physiologists conference wikilounge today. Drop me a note if there are any odd edits. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fæ, why are you uploading TIFFs from the LoC that already existed as part of the documentation of a featured picture? Hedwig just accidentally deleted the FP documentation one while trying to clean up two of your recent uploads.

Specifically, File:A yeoman of the guard (Beefeater), London, England-LCCN2002696943.tif replaced File:Detroit Publishing Co. - A Yeoman of the Guard (N.B. actually a Yeoman Warder) - Original scan.tiff, which was part of the documentation for File:Detroit_Publishing_Co._-_A_Yeoman_of_the_Guard_(N.B._actually_a_Yeoman_Warder),_full_restoration.jpg, a featured picture here and on en-wiki, but the deletion removed all the FP documentation.

I presume this was accidental, of course, but this could become a massive problem if every featured picture I have with a Library of Congress original scan gets the documentation broken. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you have been experiencing this issue. As far as I am aware, these were not identical duplicates, the Commons API ought to have taken care of that, along with my own search for the LCCN before upload. Note that there uploads were finished some time ago, and I am unaware of any other problems like this one. The restoration should be un-merged, I'm surprised that an administrator would make this error, as it should be common knowledge that restorations are considered derivatives from an original archive quality scan. There may have been a misunderstanding about what these chromolithographs are, due to the unusual hand-coloured process. If you think it is worth me commenting on the merge to ensure things are put back as they were, give me a nudge with a link to the discussion on my Commons talk page. Thanks for your work on restorations, they are much appreciated and add a great deal of educational value.

PS I'm aware that I may be confused about what has been done here. I would need to be able to see my original upload and the file that is considered a duplicate to understand it properly. Unfortunately if files and image pages are deleted, there is nothing for me to look at. --Fæ (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For all the work you've recently been doing with HABS uploads, tagging with NRHP reference numbers, and otherwise improving the quality of images related to sites on the NRHP, you deserve much more than a cookie! Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your participation in this discusssion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8#Catalog numbers as references 3+ years ago you may want to comment on a renewed duscussion on the same topic. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warren Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Glancing at some of this, I, too, am troubled by many of Plarem's edits. I see you mentioned the DRN topic at ANI. Depending on what happens, you might consider a conduct-related board for these issues. In retrospect, I wish I had looked more carefully at the article before blocking the other editor, but in this instance they were being reverted by multiple users, not just Plarem, which is not a good sign.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look. For various reasons, including my involvement in WM-LGBT+, I'll not take a lead on making a new proposal, though I am currently happy to add to the factual evidence, so that any pattern here is easier to see and hopefully one or more current admins might pay close attention both now, and going forwards to minimize disruption. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, as an admin patrolling the 3R/EW thing you did exactly what you should have done. It is not your job to look into what other behavior might be going on, at least that's not the primary job. Your block was correct, and keep this in mind: blocking the one party doesn't mean the other was right. Mark Miller is now also having a look at the editor, BTW. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies to Bbb23 if any of this looks critical of a past admin action, I have no issue with a block for edit warring in this case. I have mentioned natural justice, which I hope there is scope for in the way admin actions are considered, particularly if a newish editor has inflammatory comments directed at them, as not everyone finds it easy to respond with kindness or patience especially when trying to discuss controversial matters that they might feel passionate about. --Fæ (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no criticism was intended. I am merely responding to Bbb's well-known penchant for self-chastisement, a product of their strict Catholic upbringing. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! You've been nipping at the cooking sherry again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Never cook with a wine (sherry, whatever) that you wouldn't drink. "Cooking x" is not a product intended for human consumption. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You cook with bacon, which was not intended for human consumption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No need to apologize, Fae. @Drmies: how far my "job" extends in evaluating AN3 reports is a judgment matter. Generally, I scrutinize other editors' behavior on the article, and in this case I didn't so much. I think the block I imposed was deserved. I don't regret it. Whether any other sanctions should have been imposed is dicey. I just would rather have made an intentional choice not to sanction anyone else rather than not really notice it because I was moving a bit quickly. The good news is that these "promotion" edits by Plarem are being looked at.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "looked at" is kind of an understatement for that list that Fae drew up on DRN! Drmies (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Understatement is a product of my strict Buddhist upbringing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your help determining a pattern of disruptive behavior from a POV editor on a large number of LGBT related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, a great barnstar. It was a good use of one of my old and dusty Wikipedia custom tools from when I used to be an admin here. --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have a minor problem with some editors who think BLPs are the very best mechanism since sliced bread to dump on others (one even says he agrees with "many" things the victim says :) ) I hope there are lurkers about. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's only day 1 of the RfC, others may turn up. I happened to be talking about Paulin as someone who dropped out of popular arts shows quite a few years back, so looked up the Wikipedia article to check his age. The bias was obvious, however as touching anything around Israel/Palestine is likely to blow up in your face, I limited myself to a tag and the request at BLP/N - a wise choice as it turns out.

Luckily I'm about to go on holiday, and I'm determined to not take a keyboard even if I do take a tablet. Maybe by the time I return, the article will be much improved... it's already had significantly more attention than in the last 5 years, so the process is working out. I'm glad you are keeping an eye on it. --Fæ (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mais, je suis en vacances aussi - and I find my usual "admirers" have shown up to prevent any real fixes for horrid BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Warren Cup you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Warren Cup for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Hi, I was not watching the sub-page and so thought that it had yet to be attended to. I'll take up the points raised in the next couple of weeks and rerun the GA. --Fæ (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Fæ:, no worries. My workload has dramatically increased of late so I will be unable to deal with that GA, but I wish you all the best for it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making this RfC, but I would suggest a more neutral wording if you don't mind. The relevant policy has nothing to do with WP:BLP, but rather with the manual of style. An RfC might not be particularly effective, because the questions are two-fold. The first question is whether or not the manual of style's policy on identity can really be said to apply in this situation, since d'Eon existed before anyone had such a concept as "gender identity", and there are tactical reasons why she would have chosen to live as a woman no matter what her preferred gender. Assuming that she is not covered by this, the further question is what pronouns to use. I'd say we should adjust the RfC statement to be simpler, "The Chevalier d'Éon, was an 18th century French diplomat, spy and soldier, whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman. Given the specific facts of her life, should her life as a woman be considered an expressed gender identification according to the manual of style's policy on gender identity?" Generally RfCs are supposed to address exactly one question, and since if d'Eon's life as a woman can be considered an expression of gender identity that moots the second question (which pronouns to use and when), that's the question we should ask. If it comes down that this is a special ("edge") case, then hopefully people from the RfC will stick around to hash out the pronoun question.

I put this on your talk page rather than in the discussion there because I didn't want to clutter up the discussion (I find that the more "blocks of text" you get in RfCs, the less likely you are to get robust participation). Please let me know if you take issue with this wording.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been a couple of comments already, so I'll take a look at how to amend, probably this weekend. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your note in the RfC. I'll park this on the assumption that this will be sufficient, though I have no problem if you want to rewrite it and sign under your name. Real life has made me more unavailable this week than I was expecting. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, totally understandable. I'm trying to wrangle the RfC as best I can to a decision about the substantive issues. At this point there's quite a few comments, so no point closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped. We seem to have a decent amount of eyes on the article, though, so hopefully we can come to some consensus during the duration of the RfC. If it's not satisfactorily resolved at that point, I'll just make a second, more focused RfC to clean up anything on which the consensus is unclear.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And a kitten back at ya! Speak truth to power and all that...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hide comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that I replied to your question for me at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Ks0stm/Questions. Feel free to take a look at your leisure, and if you would like any elaboration or clarification feel free to ask. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and this note. I am happy to see most candidates including yourself have taken the question seriously, and explained the related values and experience they would bring to LGBT related cases. This was all I was hoping to achieve by asking the question.

The numbers of open women and LGBT folks running in the election is low this year, I do believe this is an issue and a future Arbcom should do more to encourage editors who openly are part of, or even advocate, minority groups should be seen to be active and welcome in Arbcom rather than expected to stay in the closet.

I see you commented below a related suggestion for an Arbcom review at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FInteractions_at_GGTF_closed, highlighting it as others may follow the link from here. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I was watching my questions page and didn't notice yours. Sorry. I'm obviously a supporter although a straight male. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem Doug. I would encourage all regular Wikipedians to support collegiate discussion about how we can create a safer space for women and open LGBT Wikimedians, especially as timing would indicate that asking an LGBT question of Arbcom candidates has immediately made me the target of a fresh batch of anti-gay related attacks off-wiki (mostly email). --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Much as I don't like the way your phrased your question (partly because how editors self-identify is their business, and they shouldn't be criticised for wishing to keep it to themselves; partly because the implication is that being a straight white male is something to be ashamed of, when nobody can control such things), you should report the harassment to the WMF. Homophobia, indeed harassment of any sort, is abhorrent. I doubt there's much that can be done, but they might be able to build a file on the person(s) responsible. Feel free to let me know if any of it comes onto the wiki and I'll stamp on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I did read your comment previously about my question, it is a difficult area of openness that I would rather not get marginalized as disruption or trolling, that under those labels can be legitimately ignored by the great and the good. If we end up with an Arbcom where no woman and no LGBT contributors are prepared to be open, no doubt one can use the rationale that it is nobody's business, however resulting negative perception to openly identifying minorities in our community would be understandable. Personally, I draw a parallel with my experience of living at a time when my country had a government with no openly gay MPs, even though the community knew darn well there were gay MPs.

If there is a debate on this in the coming year, I hope you add your viewpoint and take time to ponder if things on this project are great as they are, or should change.

As for a harassment file, based on my past experience and what I supplied to them during a police investigation, the WMF have one, going back over the last few years. I'll just never get to see it, as they have stated in public. This approach does not feel supportive to me, as the target, but more focused on protecting the interests of the WMF. I guess that's a discussion for some other time or in another place. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)