User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Gamecruft?

I consider you a better judge of game cruft than I, so could I pester you to look at Silent Death and determine whether you think it meets the requires for an afd? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged into Silent_Death_Online, which is currently a wasteland of gamecruft and "how to". Neil ☎ 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

You are true stone cold chiller indeed. --EndlessDan 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may well have noticed

But just in case! Thanks anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - you had a valid point to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kekkei genkai (Naruto)

Why this article was deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.111.221 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because there was a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkei genkai‎. Neil ☎ 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Email sent

You've got email. NHRHS2010 talk 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection. NHRHS2010 talk 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Kekkei genkai

Hey there, I see you have closed and deleted the artical according to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kekkei_genkai, the person who tagged the articale also has been tagging articales en mass and mainly ones of popular culture and uses the lack of secondary sources as a reason to delete under notability, however, many notable subjects, partically because of the language barrier and many sites giving secondary sites considered fan sites and unreliable. There are very little secondary sources avabilabe for many anime articales, if you would look at the articale Naruto, it is clearly very notable but even so, secondary sources are hard to find. The User:Pilotbob is currently at AIV, and is currently blocked until the discussion at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. I believe that articale Kekkei genkai is a notable subject could be imporved upon so can you restore the articale because it had been tagged by a possible vandal and secondary sources for anime articale are very hard to find but in this case, it does not mean it is not notable. In comparsent - the same articale on the portugal wikipedia has almost the exact same references.[1]. Af648 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources = no article. WP:V is not negotiable. Neil ☎ 10:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, [2],[3], I would guess these count as seondary sources. Af648 11:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But not reliable ones (these are fan sites). Neil ☎ 11:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there might not be any reliable secondary sources but in this case, the priamry source is the only useful source as it the creater would obviously not lie about it, snd the notibilty guildline is not "set in stone" and in this case, an exception should be made as there are no other sources of infomation except from the primary sources Af648 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for working out my mistake in the vandalism report --Peter cohen 11:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - just had to check your contributions to see where you'd left a warning! Neil ☎ 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar - amazing how you run into things you weren't expecting! - in exchange can I ask you with an admin /dispute resolution type hat on to take an unofficial peak at Bath Abbey & the edit history & talk page for a "discussion" of "The Abbey's theological tradition". I'm not involved (& don't have religious feelings) but it does fall under WikiProject Somerset which I am involved in.— Rod ^talk 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HMS (H)6

Hi. I ve seen that you deleted HMS (H)6 because it redirects to Holland 6. Well, this is a mistake. The redirect was ok. Check for example HMS (H)5, HMS (H)4, HMS (H)3. They are all submarines. Friendly, Magioladitis 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad; fortunately it seems to have been fixed a long time ago. Neil ☎ 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter is/are

Hi, I've added a further note which hopefully explains why "is" is correct in this instance. Would you mind reinstating "is"? If you're still not sure about this, let me know and I'll happily try to give further explanation. SP-KP 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the page (Talk:Rings of Jupiter). Neil ☎ 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nelly Furtardo

Hi. Regarding the AFD for her greatest hits album, you may have missed this. THE KING 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That's a picture. The article was deleted due to lack of reliable sourcing (images are not reliable sources). Neil ☎ 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sock

User:Jetwave Dave was indeffed in August for vandalism that largely consisted of harassing User:Parsecboy. A checkuser in October confirmed some 6 other socks, and resulted in an IP block. The socks followed the pattern of impersonating Parasecboy and, especially, adding his real name to mainspace articles with the assertion that he is a member of NAMBLA. As you can see in these edits, he's up to his old tricks again; appreciate if you would block 63.226.228.102 (talk · contribs) as an abusive sock of User:Jetwave Dave. Maralia 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, and those contributions deleted. Neil ☎ 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wankers Corner, Oregon

As the guy who created this article over 3 years ago, I'm puzzled why you believe this article is not notable. Please explain. -- llywrch 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't assert notability. There's a difference. I'm hoping someone will be able to edit the article so it does. See your talk page. Neil ☎ 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a real placename I didn't think it needed to explicitly assert notability. And its name is not a joke: it came about independently of the British slang, as I tried to explain in my original draft -- much along the lines of Blue Ball, Pennsylvania or Fucking, Austria. However, I've always been somewhat ambivalent about this article: beyond proving that yes it does exist, I don't know what more can be written about the place. There was a sex-related crime there back in the late 1980s, but the actual details make the possible humor that statement might have in very bad taste (some idiot cranked up on steroids kidnapped a woman working at the feed store & later shot her when she tried to escape). -- llywrch 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If its sole claim to being notable is it has a name, then we could conceivably have an article on every lane, street, hillock, duckpond, soccer pitch, tree, house, dog, boat and Morris Minor ever created. The article even admits it's "not a recognized community". Neil ☎ 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, my argument is based on the argument (admittedly a more subjective one) of how likely a given person who has no personal interest in the place would look it up. Consider a conversation where one person states, "Did you know there's a place called Wanker's Corner?" For obvious reasons, his audience will not believe him, so he goes to a reference to prove his statement true; & it's easier to find someting in Wikipedia than on the Internet in general. That is the only reason I created the article, & after several months of debate; & had the usenet reference not been at my fingertips, I would not have written it. -- llywrch 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated request

[4] Neil, can you please mail me the deleted article ME/CVS Vereniging and its talk page? Guido den Broeder 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries - User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging, User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging. Neil ☎ 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FC Steaua Bucureşti

Yesterday, you moved FC Steaua Bucureşti to FC Steaua Bucharest, with the summary "[p]er precedence and WP:MOS - common English name". I have reverted this move, pending the outcome of the move request on the article's talk page. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. WP:NC#Sports teams is very clear on this. Consensus on an isolated discussion doesn't trump the policy arrived at by the entire community. Neil ☎ 12:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Neil. Don't try to drag my opinion into this, it has nothing to do with it. Yes, there is a policy. But that policy calls itself a "list of guidelines", and that list clearly leaves room for exceptions. The naming convention is not a cast-iron mould. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If your opinion had nothing to do with it, why did you undo the move and reopen the closed discussion? Neil ☎ 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the thread. Aec·is·away ^talk 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you've already seen it, but Prolog (talk · contribs) has closed the move survey as no consensus, defaulting in keep. Just for the record: if he had decided to close the discussion as move as well, I would have accepted it; I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes it all alright. One would think in the case of a "no consensus" we would abide by Wikipedia:Naming conventions, but I no longer care. Neil ☎ 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is relevant is his explanation, which might put the dispute we had in another perspective: "Because WP:NC#Sports teams was boldly added by one user four months ago with no edit summary or discussion, and there seems to be a dispute about whether this section is descriptive of our current practice and community consensus, it is not really a great argument. This naming debate should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions." I haven't been able to check if he's right, but if he is, it would mean that a naming convention for sports teams would still need to be established. I would welcome your contributions to such a discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The convention is right there - please do point me in the direction of said dispute. As best I can tell, the change was widely supported. There's certainly no dissension on WT:NAME about it, nor has there been at any point since Jan 2007 (I didn't look back any further than that). Prolog should probably refrain from making naming decisions if he doesn't agree with the naming policy. Neil ☎ 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But if he's right, there was never any consensus that this should be part of the naming convention in the first place. You appear to be saying "well, noone ever disagreed or protested." That is immaterial. Policy is achieved through discussion and consensus prior to policy forming; something doesn't become policy just because noone bothers to revert. Being bold in policy making is a right reserved to Jimbo. All of this means that we still need to come to a consensus on the naming of articles about sports teams. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Neil, that's for support in that clear (in my opinon) racist case. -- AdrianTM 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for not listening to the wikilawyering and doing what needs to be done™ Will (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That means you can always do what you think that "needs to be done", even if you are abusing while doing that... --Eurocopter tigre 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Indeed, that's a core policy. Will ^(talk) 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned Lowe

Hi Neil. I very much liked your improvements to the Ned Low article. Good additional content and well organized. Letterofmarque 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Neil ☎ 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rubber_cat/FYAD

This is a page created by Rubber cat for all his forum pals to leave messages and now serves no real purpose, given that RC is blocked and the FYAD attacks are now being coordinated on the forums. That page should be deleted and User_talk:Rubber cat should be protected to discourage other forum users to continue posting there while vandalizing this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Neil ☎ 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the protect. Daniel 09:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv

Neil, i have noticed that you have moved Arsenal Kyiv to Arsenal Kiev in contradiction to the vote on the talk page. Please explain your actions as Arsenal Kyiv is a name of the club (and a company). UEFA use Arsenal Kyiv, their official website use Arsenal Kyiv. Why do you believe that Arsenal Kiev is more common? --MaksKhomenko 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for the way I dealt with your closure of the move request of FC Steaua Bucharest yesterday. Looking back, I shouldn't have undone your closure without contacting you first, and I shouldn't have used certain words. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I shouldn't have reacted in the way I did, because my response probably provoked you into using those words. Thank you for the kind apology - it is appreciated. No hard feelings and let's move on. Neil ☎ 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Feather in your cap, sir

For this little gem on AN/I about Betacommandbot:

Considering how many times the bot has been here with some sort of problem like this, perhaps it's time to retire the bot completely? Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen, sadly. But it would be a glorious day for many, many editors. Neil ☎ 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, sir. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot questions

I saw your comment on AN/I about an RFC on BetacommandBot doing too many things, some not that well. I'm somewhat new here and looked at RFC guidlines. "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Since there is no guidline that bots should fork at some point, I don't know that an RFC would be that productive. Would somewhere like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group be a better place to discuss it? Mbisanz 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot approvals group is probably the best place to start. Neil ☎ 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wahroongabushschoollogo.gif

Hi, I've just noticed that you deleted Image:Wahroongabushschoollogo.gif as part of your deletion of Wahroonga Public School, which has subsequently been restored (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Wahroonga Public School (closed)).

• Can you please restore the image that went with the school article.
• I'm new but I intend to add value where I can, over time, the original debate over the school article deletion and the deletion review were interesting to review, if anything just to understand the process.
• Regarding the image, I attempted to work my way through the copyright issues, did I get it correct?
• I have also just noticed that you (correctly) removed a link from the Wahroonga suburb article to the Wahroonga Public School article whilst deleting the article.
• A general question on the process - should this be restored by Nat who closed the deletion review, or should I (in noticing the removed link) restore it? I'm making the image restore request to you, per Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? Thanks in advance of guidance/assistance --AgentMole (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I've restored it. Anyone will restore such an image, or you can reupload it. It doesn't really matter - there's no special process. Neil ☎ 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your block disputed

Please see User talk:Anittas. `'Míkka>t 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Additions to Template:Infobox Company

Hi Neil: I see that you have protected the infobox Company. I would like to make a request for support for two additional fields which are very important and are always reported: Total Assets and Total Equity. Those two fields are particularly important in financial companies and are important in all companies as they show in a very real sense how solvent the company is and also reflect most accurately how large the company is. I have made the request on the talk page but I don't think the template is being actively monitored since it is protected. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about wiki coding; that is a very syntax-heavy template. I will ask for an admin who knows complex template stuff to make the edit. Neil ☎ 10:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a crack... where should these fieds be displayed? — Edokter • Talk • 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it we need two additional fields, "Total Assets" (pipelinked to Assets) and "Total Equity" (pipelinked to Ownership equity). I don't think it matters where they go. Neil ☎ 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick response. The two items are on the balance sheet (the template never supported balance sheet items) and so should appear together (typically with assets above equity -- equity is net worth) and either above or below (probably below) the other financial info which all came from theincome statement. And if we wanted to get extra fancy (but I am not specifically requesting at this time) we would have headings for "balance sheet" and "income statement" with the fields as children. If you want to see how these all tie together click on google finance for Citigroup and then look at the income statement and balance sheet. Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done I've placed assets= and equity= between net_income= and owner=. I also updated the doc, but you might want to expand the examples and field descriptions. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks! I will try to test it and add the documentation by the end of the day! Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoe polish FAR

Shoe polish, an article in which you widely contributed, has been put on Featured article review. Your inputs would be welcome! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas

Incivility - yes, racism, no. Anittas must be banned from whatever communication with certain editors with whom he has an acute long time grudge, probably tracing back to Romanian national message boards/mailing lists (although I may have a wrong impression). My position is that only arbcom can ban a long-time editor forever. A "consensus" among several random admins who didn't spend time to carefully hear all sides is a kangaroo court. `'Míkka>t 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

Check your email please, sir. Maralia (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the constructive criticism and tweeking.--Doc^g 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoe polish

His comment shows that there's a back story I'm not familiar with and it may not be a good faith nom. Second thought is, why not take the time to make a few tidy-ups while it's up? I've just commented, for example, that a single sentence section (Other methods) doesn't belong. No worries—he won't be able to have it removed as an exercise in POINT. Marskell (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

LGYF (talk • contribs) is already blocked (block log • unblock) . To change the block expiry and/or block reason, you must first unblock the user. Darn - you're too fast for me :) Was just going for indef based on death threat at [[WP:ANI] Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I move fast! ;) Neil ☎ 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aggrotech

Hello

Still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia "properly", so please bare with me.

I note you deleted the article for Aggrotech. However this now leads to a problem that the genre of music it represents, now has no representation in the form of an article. A lot of bands (Amduscia, Combichrist) now no longer have a "genre", or rather they do, it just leads to no where.

The other discussed problem is different names for the same music genre as discussed on the articles talk page. Both "Hellektro" and "Terror EBM" are both commonly used as well as "Aggrotech". The problem here is that none of the three have articles on Wikipedia. Therefore this means a type of music which certainly exists, cant be assigned a (correct) genre.

Does this make sense? Apologies if not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintersmute3 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wintersmute3. It does make sense, but you will have little luck getting an article for any of those "genres" unless you can prove they have been referenced in reliable sources. Aggrotech was deleted for that very reason (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggrotech). I would suggest changing the genre of those bands to something more generic (industrial music, say). PS - you can sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Neil ☎ 10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarity and your time. P.S. Bloody confusing this Wikipedia lark! My mind is boggled. Wintersmute3 (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And I agree, it can really be bloody confusing for new users (as well as us "veterans")! You sort of get the hang of things after a while, though. If you have any other questions, let me know. Neil ☎ 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete it! It has nothing to do with industrial music! The stylistic and historical difference between the genres is so gigantic like the difference between Blues music and Death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.18.226 (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide one good reference for that claim, 87.122, then it can be re-looked at. Neil ☎ 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a joke, or??? Go and look for a reliable source, which says that this music is industrial music! You must establish this fact, not me. This redirect is a simple arbitrary act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.44.229 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No sheep here

It's impressive when someone ignores the crowd and votes oppose. And with a perfectly reasonable rationale as well. I also think some people are better at doing work on the sidelines, but happen to think that Brad's contributions on the mailing list will be invaluable. Carcharoth 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally wrote a far longer rationale, but it boiled down to that. Neil ☎ 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who can file an RfCU?

Thanks for the clarification on Jeffpw's talkpage. I thought that was the case. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Neil ☎ 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi Neil. Thanks a lot for your opinion. You said that '...registering at the last minute to avoid all those tricky questions about his overt biases'. I must say that i totally disgree w/ that picture. As i said on my statement, i've been setting up my own business and the process is almost at its end and that's why i've had limited time here. Also, i've been consulting the nomination issue w/ many users and admins (it was a request from 2 admins in fact to convince me to nominate myself). The decision was taken at the last minute for the above 2 reasons and there was no attempt to avoid answering questions. I've never left any question unanswered on my Wiki experience as you could verify on my talk page and other Wikipedia venues. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. i think i was right to oppose. Neil ☎ 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil though you haven't mentioned to me those 'overt biases'. At least you could help me avoid them in the future in case they really exist ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

cat class template

For some reason, I'm seeing an extra-tall display with Firefox ... have a look at Start-Class Mining articles, for example. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, balls. You are right - and it's not just Firefox, it's wrong on IE too. Reverted the change. Neil ☎ 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried an experiment, seems to work, in the start class mining articles... What do you think? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems to work fine - good work Mr It. Neil ☎ 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I revised the code - the problem was that blank lines were put in if the page did not meet the if condition. So in my original testing, it worked on the projects I tried, but not on projects without these extra categories. The very simple fix was just to adjust where the character returns are placed. The new code (on the talk page) will fix this. The code Prove It created would not work properly, as it was missing the <td></td> tags required in conditional statements to produce a table. --Scott Alter 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Did you received my email? Regards --KarlV 12:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Karl - I did, yes, but my access to email is limited for the next few weeks so I am unable to reply. I think I have learned more about the situation in the last day or so. Neil ☎ 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, have a nice time (christmas).--KarlV (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:2005

I made an edit to a talk page where in response to a request I tried to remove a single half finished line I mistakenly left in a talk page. The database was lagging 51 seconds at the time and somehow other comments were removed according to the edit history. I have no explaination for that, but it was not my intent. However, to block a user with 10,000+ edits without asking ANY question or warning is quite an inappropriate action for an administrator. Aside from vandalism and BLP issues, talk comments of course should not be removed, and in a few years and thousands of edits I never done this prior to this mistake, so a block like this is extremely inappropriate. I assume this inappropriate (and frankly not nice) action was done in part because of the sloppy action of another admin who didn't pay attention to what he was doing and warned me about removing tags from a page, which I did not do. I reverted another editor's "ignore all rules" merge that had zero support, and direct opposition. Perhaps I didn't do the reversion right, but it is plainly obvious to anyone who would be bothered to look at the edit history what my intent was. This was sloppy work on that admin's part. And while the edit history does appear to show I removed talk comments, putting a block on an editor who has top 5% most good faith edits in the encyclopedia, and litreally zero history of anything simlar, can never be jusrified. Please unblock the account immediately, and I'd suggest in the future to make comments to longstanding editors before taking such out of left field actions in the future. Thanks. 68.166.135.238 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use the {{unblock}} template on your user talk page - a) I have no idea if you actually are 2005 (talk · contribs), and b) if you are, you're using an IP sock to evade a block. Neil ☎ 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cornelius

Yeh, I almost got up and danced when I found it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks versus warnings and calming things down

Hi Neil. I saw your indefinite block of User:Metsguy234 for posting a link to an article on Durova's talk page. Do you think you could look at the discussion here and let me know what you think? I fear that overly aggressive blocking could make the problems worse. The differing reactions to these two cases are also inconsistent, though I don't know how much can be done about that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To explain further, I see this series of 5 edits: [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Over the top, angry, upset, yes. But indefinite blocking? I would have handled it differently, as Franamax has noted, and am letting you know in the hope that admins as a whole can be consistent in their actions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - it wasn't just for posting the link, it was the fact that in the 15 edits made by the account, no real contribution to an article had been made (clearly not interested in contributing productively), it labelled editors as morons ([10]), soapboxed about Durova ([11]) added nonsense ([12]), and threatened to out an IP ([13]). Looking at the discussion you link to, I have to say I probably would have blocked the account being discussed there, too. If there's been no good faith contributions, and the account is solely causing trouble, why allow them to continue to edit? Neil ☎ 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in the discussion you just read. Would you like me to repeat that here? Responding to what you wrote, I'm most concerned about this: "it was the fact that in the 15 edits made by the account, no real contribution to an article had been made (clearly not interested in contributing productively)" - this is a difficult judgment to make. If you applied these criteria, a lot of other accounts would be blocked indefinitely as well. Do you really think you can make judgments like that on this basis and be correct all the time? Would you be happy for all admins to make that sort of judgment? In the block summary, you say "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users" - is this really the sign of an account created solely to hassle other users? What I see there is an account created by someone who edits mainly at another wiki (see here), who didn't do much for a year after registering the account here, but recently started editing. Still has a lot to learn, but obviously read about the Durova incident, got upset, posted a few things, and got hit with a banhammer. Indefinitely. I repeat (in the hope that you will respond to these specific points), "overly aggressive blocking could make the problems worse" and "the differing reactions to these two cases are [...] inconsistent". If you feel that the actions warranted a block, fair enough (the user had had previous warnings), but since when was an indefinite block the way to handle a first block? Would you be prepared to make it a block of a definite length, such as a week-long block? Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fwiw, I'd support Metsguy as a well intentioned, if ultimately misinformed user who regrettably let his anger and naivety result in some posts that I don't think he realised could be interpreted so negatively. I believe that Carcharoth's assessment is likely accurate. - Estel ^(talk) 19:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And some others are agreeing on Metsguy's talk page. The kind of unblock summary I'm thinking of can be seen in a similar case here. For other, more diplomatic and PR-sensitive, ways this has been handled, see here. Sorry if this sounds brusque - just trying to keep you informed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread (metsguy234)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes need acknowledging, where I've criticized this action of yours. Apologies if I came over too strong there. I know I should try and be more diplomatic, but I feel very strongly about this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request on de-WP

Hi Neil, I transfered your Request to our German Administrators Noticeboard. You may participate in the discussion there as I will keep translating any comments into English if neccesary. Greetings, Taxman_de^{Talk (de)} 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Er, I mean danke schon ;) Neil ☎ 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Seekda

Hi,

I'm often confused and frustrated with the results of AFD discussions I participate in, which makes me think I'm missing something. Given that, could you explain the reasonong on how Seekda was not deleted? Even based on votes there were 3 delete, 2 keeps, and I still see nothing in the references which independently support the notability of the company through in-depth coverage.

Since I've had a similar experience several times, it makes me suspect that admins delete pages based on a criteria I'm not understanding. I'm not questioning your decision to not delete the page, just what I missed; I'm sure it's a failure of my comprehension rather than anything wrong with the process.

Lots of prefacing 'cause I don't want to come across as a dick when I think the failing is mine.

Thanks,

WLU (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey WLU! This is new territory for me - normally I get complained for deleting an article when there was "no consensus to delete". It was borderline, and I couldn't rightly say whether the consensus was to delete or to keep (3 to 2 is not particularly strong, there were reasonable arguments from both side). That's pretty much the definition of "no consensus", and in that case we default to keep. However "no consensus" is not "keep", and there's nothing wrong with re-assessing the article at AFD in a month or two. And you didn't come across as a dick, don't worry ;) Neil ☎ 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if there's no policy I'm not aware of (I hate it when the 'culture' of wikipedia is the reason something gets done, 'cause there's no WP: link for that) I'll just let it lie. I'm beginning to get a greater appreciation of the difficulties of deletion for the admins, it's got to be a source of much frustration. Thanks for the reply, much appreciated! WLU (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines for closing deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators (WP:DGFA). This explains how to judge consensus, and so on, but there always needs to be an element of human judgement (if there didn't, then we could just automate the whole thing). Neil ☎ 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's why I've never seen it. As soon as I see 'admin's guide to ___' I tune out. But (sigh) I suppose I'll read this one as it'll be useful for future contested AFDs. Looks like an excellent resource, thanks for the link. WLU (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dkim27

Hello,

I'm a newbie who is sometimes lost in Wikipedia, but determined to help this encyclopedia. I currently need a wing to be under, and I have considered being an adoptee of you. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

--TheNextOneAcross (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eva Morris

Hi Neil, I was puzzled by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Morris as "keep". I see no evidence anywhere in the debate that she meets WP:BIO, and no prospect of the article being expanded beyond a stub. The only way that I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted".

Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also question the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Jennings. I see no evidence of notability, just a few WP:ILIKEIT arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey BHG. There are pretty strong consensuses (consensusii?) on both AFDs that the subjects are notable. It is not my job to then evaluate WP:BIO and close it per my interpretation of it - if that was the case then all AFD discussions would be pointless. WP:DRV is that way if you wish further evaluation of the closure. Neil ☎ 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I think that you have misinterpreted the closer's job as set out in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, so I'll take this to DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a reasonable idea of the role (not job) of closing AFDs. But requesting further input at deletion review is, of course, anyone's prerogative. Neil ☎ 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DRVs in which I have participated have not favoured vote-counting, which is why I suggest that you have misinterpreted the job. Anyway, we'll see what other folks have to say at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 6#Eva_Morris and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 6#Annie_Jennings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for informing me. Neil ☎ 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I also posted my strong views regarding this several weeks ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consenus_and_votestacking Neal (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

RfA

Thanks for the laugh. :) --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries ;) Neil ☎ 13:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Ethiaat and Ethiaat Mushtabbi from AR1

Do you know anything about these terms? Because I feel that since they have been requested for over a year that they should have an entry at List of Islamic terms in Arabic and redirects there. Taemyr (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, feel free to do that. Neil ☎ 13:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that I only know these terms from online dictionaries, any entry I make would be a copyvio. Taemyr (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Islamic terms in Arabic could possibly be moved to Wiktionary, as it's just a glossary. But answering your point, a short entry on the list with the appropriate reference given would not be a copyvio. Neil ☎ 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It could, but there is a fair number of glossaries on wikipedia. And I feel it's convenient to have them here. Taemyr (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I certainly won't try and move it! But yes, as I said, a short entry would not be a copyright violation (as long as it's referenced). Neil ☎ 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfying articles

Can you point to the rule that prohibits userfying articles. Also explain how it violates GFDL. I can use any information in Wikipedia, except in Wikipedia? That doesn't make sense. How does it violate the license? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard, there is no rule against userfying articles - what you were doing was not userfying, as you had not included the history of the article. See WP:USERFY - cut and pasting the text of an article violates GFDL as the article history is lost, this is why userfying almost always means "move", not "cut and paste". If you really feel you have to cut and paste (not advisable), then as per WP:USERFY#Cut_and_paste_userification, you need to also cut and paste the history. You also failed to remove fair use screenshots from the userspace copies you made, breaking WP:FU. The GFDL states all information is freely available but attribution must be retained. By breaking the chain of attribution (losing the article history), you are breaching GFDL. It's not a big deal, just bear it in mind in future. Neil ☎ 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• If it violates GFDL, every use outside of Wikipedia violates GFDL, since they do not include a comprehensive edit history. Can you point to the part of the GFDL license that requires the edit history to be preserved. Attribution is to Wikipedia, not the individual submitters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com uses the following attribution: "Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "George W. Bush"." Is this violating the license? Must they list every edit?

No, referring back to the original article is sufficient, as they provide a direct link, and the history can be accessed. Neil ☎ 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• And if the original article is deleted, does that place Answers.com in violation? Does that mean if I userfy an article, I can refer back to the original article too? How is a non administrator to improve an article that has been deleted if they are restricted from keeping a copy to work on? Can you please point to the part of the GFDL license that refers to this rule. I think Answers.com should be informed that retaining copies of deleted articles violates their license with Wikipedia. If this is true, then the Wikimedia Foundation should be notified. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  Argh, no, wrong end of the stick. If you want to work on an article that has been deleted, ask for an administrator to userfy it. We can undelete it, move it into your userspace (history and all), and delete the redirects that remain in mainspace. That way GFDL is kept. As per your second point, answers.com retaining copies of deleted articles could technically be violating the license, I believe, but you could argue they were acting in good faith as it was there when they took a copy, and if we choose to subsequently delete it can they be expected to monitor all the articles? They would argue maintaining the chain is not their responsibility. It's an interesting point I can't really answer. Neil ☎ 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well here is their violation: [14]. It would be nice if you restored the copy I was working on (with the edit history, your an administrator), or arrange for the Answers.com version to be deleted, or notify Wikimedia Foundation that Answers.com is in violation of the current interpretation of GFDL, or rethink the premise you are using to delete copies people are retaining to fix what problems were brought up during deletion. You still haven't cited me the text in the GFDL license that you are referring to. You should know the exact quote, or where to find it. Instead of speculating, or hearing it second hand, I would like to read it and try to sort it out for myself. I am not trying to be rude, or impatient, you brought up a legal conundrum, and I want to see it through. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've followed deleted articles on reusers like answers.com, and I can confirm that they do generally update their databases and remove the deleted articles. It can take several months though. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't seen anything in the license that precludes storing a copy on a userpage within Wikipedia. The license refers to naming the top contributors if you are going to continue to change the article. So it appears to me that all a user has to do is provide a link to the deletion page where the deletion debate occurred, similar to Answers.com. As far as Answers eventually deleting their copy, just like the speeder on the highway, duration of the transgression does not matter. If its a violation, its still a violation even if it is eventually rectified by deletion. Every speeder on the highway eventually slows down. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

De Zayas

Hello Neil,

this ist Carol Christiansen from the german Wikipedia, and I'm the OTRS-person who is the point of contact in the Zayas-case. If you have any questions or ideas about this, please contact me via mail: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:E-Mail/Unscheinbar - I'll responde as soon as possible.

And, btw.: "Carol" is a boys name in Germany: the latin version of "Carl". Just in case you didn't allready knew that... ;-)

Kind regards, 213.39.185.109 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right is: I'm not KarlV. But right is also, that my nick at de: is both, Unscheinbar and Carol.Christiansen, as written on both userpages. And for "Carol Christiansen" is my real name, this is the name I'm registered with the OTRS, too. Please ask my collegues. Kind regards, 213.39.185.109 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Neil, I obvoiously made a fault. So forget my first posting here. I did not realized that indeed Carol is Unscheinbar. Regards.--KarlV (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re : Relisting

I've omitted it in error (was relisting about a hundred AfDs). Thank you for spotting and handling this particular AfD for relist. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Last bits on shoe polish

Hi Neil. Shoe polish can go from FAR soon but could probably use a couple of more citations: the first and last paragraphs of Surge in popularity and the last paragraph of Manufacture. I know some people hate fact tags, so I didn't add any. I'm iffy about the Media section as it's trivia. Marskell (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort it out Monday or Tuesday. Cheers Tim! Neil ☎ 12:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Writing Style

I was looking around at articles and found History of computer hardware in Soviet Bloc countries. The entire article is written in a sort of stereotypical english as a second language tone, with many words missing (e.g. here). I'm not sure what to do with it other than change it all myself, which I don't have time for right now, but I'm not entirely sure whether it falls under WP:CU. I put the tag there but I'm not sure if it is appropriate; can you take a look? Dustybunny (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Edit conflicts come up for a reason. Please do not overwrite other's comments. [1]. Neıl ☎ 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh... thanks, and I have absolutely no idea how that happened. I was trying to be careful. Epthorn (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. On a busy thread I find it helps to write your message, copy it, then refresh the screen before pasting it and hitting save (greatly reduces the chance of an edit conflict). Neıl ☎ 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Will-do, sorry. I usually stick to nice boring locations...Epthorn (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)