User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church

If you have some time for that...A comparison with the respective article in Britannica regarding structure and references wouldn't hurt. What references do they rely on? What kind of structure do they prefer compared to the WP article? Squash Racket (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Posted to the FAC. The Roman Catholicism entry on Britannica is one of their very best pieces of work, and must have taken an expert years to compile, so don't feel the Wikipedia article has to be as good as the EB one! Neıl 龱 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that these articles are not comparable, but if another dispute emerges over references for specific parts of the article, it may still be useful. Squash Racket (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Board elections policy

How Neil will be deciding his votes in the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. Make sure you vote!!!:

• Nobody under 25 (maturity is a MUST)
• No life-long students (must be working or have worked)
• Preferably experience in a senior management role
• Good English (sorry, but this is vital)

Current preferred candidates, based on record and responses (no particular order):

• Gregory Kohs, Samuel Klein, Harel Cain, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, Ray Saintonge, Steve Smith. Would be happy with any of these guys serving on the board.

Current least preferred candidates, based on record and responses:

• Ad Huikeshoven/Ting Chen (both exhibit poor English), Dan Rosenthal (no real experience, bad answers), Kurt Weber (seems like a joke), MBisanz (too young, grossly exaggerated experience), Paul Williams/Craig Spurrier (both far too young), Ryan Postlethwaite (too young, no experience, bad answers). Would not want to see any of these guys serving on the board.

If you read this, don't worry about who I choose (this is really for my own benefit) - make your own mind up, but please go and vote. Neıl 龱 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Krause 450

I'm not gonna second-guess you (WP:AGF and all that); but I have grim suspicions you may regret unblocking him. See my remarks on his talk page for further explication. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re...

...your indef block of User:Jpmdhd. She has been in touch with me via email (I deleted another Clayton Sleep Institute (CSI)-related article of theirs today) for advice on how to avoid it happening again. She assures me that she and User:Mhf95 are in fact two different people, who collaborated on the article. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they both work in the same place - no prizes for guessing where - but I think perhaps there may be grounds to reconsider your indefblock? It seems to me that it's more a case of inexperience than malice; the second account was only used once, to post a talk page question asking for advice, and I don't believe sockpuppetry is involved. There may still be various issues with COI and the like, but the editors at least seem willing to listen and learn... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, AGF it is! I don't know whether we'll see these editors again, and I've watchlisted the appropriate pages, so if there's any concerns I'll block them myself if I have to. However, thanks to their inexperience they did get bitten pretty hard (two blocks, one AfD and one speedy)... and all due to a drive-by tagging. Sometimes I wonder how any newbies get past their first day :P EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kate and Gin

I have nominated Kate and Gin, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate and Gin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had the same inclination

But I've been burnt in the past for speedy deleting hoaxes as... hoaxes. The bureaucracy has forced me to be bureaucratic in cases where I know the correct line of action is blocking and deleting but the line of action required has to go round about to achieve the same result. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been wary for, as I just discovered, years: Look at the history of Mongolian Jesus. This has always stuck in my mind as the reason to tip toe around hoaxes. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question ?

Pure vandals get 4 chances (if not more) before any action is taken. They get warnings on their talk page, they finally they get disciplined. I am a vandal fighter. I have an over 18000 edits since April and I get no warning what so ever. A user puts profanity on my talk page, I report him and you remove access to Huggle for a week. The user made no attempt to show his citation, he jumps on my talk page with this [[1]] and I get punished. I ask once again for you to reverse your decision regarding Huggle. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CanadianLinuxUser

Neil: you just drove away one of our best vandal-fighters. CanadianLinuxUser was easily twice as fast as I am, and when we were both on huggle, I never saw him make any reverts that I wouldn't have made. I fought vandals for two months more than he did and look at where he is on the list of contributers to AIV. It is impossible make that many reports to AIV without nearly 100% being accurate. If they weren't accurate, the user would be blocked for disruption.

Why did you remove huggle from him for a week for that? 24 or 31 hours, maybe, but a week? You may not fight vandals a lot, but I see stuff like that every time I'm on, and 99.999% of the time, it turns out to be false. Removing huggle from him for a week because of that seems to be more than a little vindicative on your part, but I may be reading into your comment a tone that was not intended.

I'm sorry, but you really need to count your losses before you act. RickK left after someone blocked him for "breaking the 3RR rule" when he was actually reverting a vandal. Seriously, you do not know how good CLU was. As I said before, CLU was one of the best vandal-fighters I have ever seen. His absence will create a massive hole that all the rest of us rank-and-file people will have to fill. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Numerous people have left messages on CLU's talk page encouraging him to stick around. I think it would be wise for you to do the same. His user page says he's retired. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to happen. I understand why you did what you did, and I endorse it, but he could use some coaching, not just "Bye." BradV 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, seriously, why did you remove his huggle stuff with no warning? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I don't know if I'm right or wrong here. Sigh, I just don't want to see CLU leave. I'm at a total loss of what to do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to keep spamming your talk page. I just wanted to say that the more I look into this, the less sure I am that I was right. I apologize for any attacks I made, and I want you to know that I have utterly no idea what my proper response to this should have been, nor do I know for certain if I should have involved myself in this at all. *sigh* J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There do seem to be a lot of people quitting in a huff lately after some sort of clash, followed by people pointing fingers and insisting that others change their behavior to end the sort of atmosphere that produces such resignations (ironically contributing, themselves, to an atmosphere of rancor that perhaps drives people away). *Dan T.* (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, I did the exact thing you said happens too often. I want to apologize to anyone who sees this for creating a hostile atmosphere. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

[2] What now? (If anything). Fainites ^barley 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* - it seems mediation is a bust. Carry on as you are and if problems continue, drop me a note. Neıl 龱 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. The only problem so far is that I removed the POV tags from the Attachment theory article but Kingsleys replaced them. They can't just stay there indefinitely if there's no effort being made at dispute resolution can they? Fainites ^barley 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying by the way. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It still says open! [3] Fainites ^barley 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Updates after AfD - Navneet Singh Khadian

This is in reference to my request on your archive page 25.

Respected Sir/Madam, you are aware that during AfD - Navneet Singh Khadian, you had deleted this article because there were 3 Delete Votes against 2 Keep votes, means there was margin of "One" vote in favour of deletion. This margin does not exist anymore.

I had previously mentioned that 2 out of three "Delete" voters had clearly shown POV/biased voting, i.e.: 1. User Talk:202.54.176.51 had clearly shown his hate towards the subject by requesting to mention him a terrorist or to delete it at all. 2. User:Vivin's using word Terrorism (POV) against Militancy (NPOV) while giving his delete vote.

• Now there are two MAJOR updates

3. The third and the last Keep voter, i.e. User:Tomb of the Unknown Warrior has been indifinitely blocked by wikipedia afterwards, so kindly exclude his "Keep" vote from your decision.

4. A fourth User:Mightyunit who, created his user account on May 1st 2008, i.e. the starting day of this Afd discussion, did huge vandalism in this article by deleting several references/information to influence this AfD has also been tracked and indifinitely blocked by Wikipedia afterwards. My requests regarding this matter during this AfD are, 1, 2, 3, 4.

Kindly review your decision and Keep this article because of major updates mentioned above, where two wikipedia users have already been blocked AND because Wikipedia's has also Kept another similar article of chief of parallel militant organization, involved in same Khalistan movement, fighting for exactly same cause Singh6 01:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced, and would suggest Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neıl 龱 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work...

Y1 (tobacco) saved! That article is coming along nicely... well done. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Hey, Neil I am uploading some magazine scans with Zachary Jaydon/Jaydon D. Paull's mantions, etc. I am wondering what the appropriate place to put these would be. Should I provide a link to the scans? The article is being written off as a hoax, but I think people are lazy in their assumptions. He works mainly in the Indie music market nowadays, and just because the information isn't a google click away doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is fake. Thank you for your help, and please understand that I am not trying to start an argument, just provide information to clarify things. Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Oh and a PS: his scans may be real, but hes the 'manager/lawyer/writer/street team leader/pr junkie' of CTH...so...he gave all those imaginary figures and facts himself. But a...I think you knew that ;) already.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Spamblock

Hi; no, I don't mind you increasing the length of my block on that spammer. If you think a block of six months on an educational site is OK, then fair enough. You will have noted that I did leave a threat on the user's talk page of a much longer block if he came back, so I was not being wholly superficial. I was watching too, though will unwatch now. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've changed it to a softblock. Neıl 龱 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I read your statement that you "asked an ArbCom member to oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity." Which ArbCom member declined to do this due to the fact that "the information is already out there?" I consider that a shocking abdication of responsibility. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure that releasing their name publically would be allowed - check your email. Neıl 龱 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you have email disabled. I need to clarify my statment with "ex-", hold on. Neıl 龱 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There, it's clearer now. I emailed User:Oversight over this diff, and had a reply from an ex-ArbCom member refusing to oversight it as "the information is already out there". Neıl 龱 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would enable email this evening (US) for the purposes of this email. My policy is to be uncontactable, because "sunshine is the best disinfectant." However, since it's an ex-arb I don't care anymore. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - no need to enable your email, then. Neıl 龱 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil

I would take it as a personal favor if you did not discuss me on Wikipedia Review. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. No matter how politely couched, your request is rude. You have no right and no justification to suggest to me or anyone else what we can or cannot discuss off-Wiki. Neıl 龱 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DNAP

I dropped some sources and comments on User_talk:Neil/DNAP. Thatcher 19:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are teh awesome. Thanks Thatcher. Neıl 龱 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening

I am humbly requesting Rollback. I was accepted for "VandalFighter" but it doesn't work with firefox, and I do a lot of vandal work on articles like Tobacco, Skull and Bones, and other articles I watch. (see my user page for more articles I defend) I appreciate your time. Thank you. Beam 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Save Toby

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Save Toby. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

• It's done. Thanks for the help. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  I've commented on the DRV - seems fine to me, good work! Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now I need to face my Wikipedian nemesis - an image. One thing I completely do not understand is the image policy. What would be allowed? An image from the website? A news source that uses the website image? The cover of the book? The site logo? I'd like to get a picture or two up there, but I don't want those ugly image warning tags on my talk page. Any advice? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (It's just easier for you if I reply here)...I was specifically wondering about this image. At least 2 of the sources I have use it (implying some sort of permission or release for public use), and barring a use of the logo (would be undesirable) or a screenshot of the page (less so), would be the best way to convey the image. I know the policy doesn't allow non-free images of persons...but is Toby a person? --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The images are uploaded. I'm pretty sure the rationale for one of them is good, not so sure about the other. Check them for me, please? Also, I'm not sure I have them put on the page optimally...--UsaSatsui (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes

I put 2 & 2 together. Sometimes I get the right answer, sometimes I don't :) Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Buh? Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mail :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Assuming the AFD goes the way it looks, what's to be done with TragedyStriker? Indef block? That's my preference. It's pretty obvious to me that this goes beyond resume inflation into conscious fraud.
Kww (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe

Thanks for the typo fix, sure it was OK, much appreciated in fact. *blushes* delldot talk 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlock my Userpage Please

You blocked me a while back. I have since been unblocked but my userpage is still protected. Can you please unprotect it for me?

Metsguy234 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep,  Done Neıl 龱 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory mediation

Hiya Neil. I commented at WP:AN. I personally would like to have seen a topic ban but most supported the block and i don't see any problem with it. The topic ban was more preference. Its a shame that this had to happen though. I like to see ever mediation successful but it seems this one just wasnt meant to happen. I look forward to prehaps working with you on another mediation in future :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving all this extensive time and attention. Fainites ^barley 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both - it was unfortunate; I would have preferred a successful mediation, but it had become pretty apparent Kingsley had no interest in engaging in it, rather using it as a delaying tactic. When no other options are available, a ban became the only option, as there seems to be no other way of addressing his editing behaviour. Remember that indefinite does not mean permanent, and should he agree to work more constructively with others, this block can be revisited. Seddon, I agree - who knows what the future will hold :) One last point - I believe a topic ban, given Kingsley's narrow band of interest, would have had the same effect and end result as a general ban. Neıl 龱 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say I would have been surprised if he'd mediated as most of his earlier behaviour was filibustering - but I had a moment of real hope there when he actually produced a few sources for Slakr's table. I thought we were off and away at that point! But it wasn't to be. Fainites ^barley 07:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Y1 (tobacco), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year

Hi Neil. With the year almost up, we're making an effort to reduce the number of listings at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. You've been a big help in the past with that project page and I am hoping that you can knock out a few to contribute to the effort. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Year almost up?! :P Neıl 龱 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lizzie Borden

Hi. I noted your comment regarding the lumping of quotes into footnotes at the AN/I board and wanted to let you know there is a RfC on the Borden talk page at this time regarding this and some other issues. I thought you might want to lend your opinion, as it seems we are garnering a consensus, for this article at least, on the use of the quotes. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

This struck me as rather inflammatory. I know what it's like when reading opposes one disagrees with, but upsetting a bunch of editors isn't going to help Avruch, especially if his RfA itself becomes a drama scene. I suggest you tone it down... --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That was toned down from what I originally wrote. I stand by the comment, but have toned it down some more. Neıl 龱 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I was originally going to post it at 200px, but thought that might just be overkill, :-) Thanks for the amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Neıl 龱 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic turkey article

Can you please check your facts before you make changes or deletions? Just because you think something is garbage, or you prefer "pets" to "companion animals" doesn't mean that the sources you are quoting support this, or that you are correct. Arbitrary changes to support your POV are simply POV and not acceptable. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference you give {[4]) does not use the phrase "companion animals" for turkeys at any point. Note that Companion animal redirects to Pet. Neıl 龱 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Our turkey adoption process resembles those of companion animal shelters that match cats and dogs with caring and responsible adopters," said Leanne Cronquist, Farm Sanctuary's California shelter manager. "We carefully screen all our applicants and ensure they are committed to providing lifelong sanctuary for their new companions. After all, turkeys are bright, social and sensitive animals who-like cats and dogs-deserve the very best in life." {http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/2007/pr_turkey_express_CA.html} ph#2

It sounds to me that if people are providing their turkey companions sanctuary, that a pet turkey is refered to as a companion. The line in the article clearly says that Farm Sanctuary says...and Farm Sanctuary says companion animal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's minor enough that it can stay in the article. I did remove some of the other false statements in the section that were supposedly in the reference. Neıl 龱 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I saw the other words you took out, and you're right about those, they aren't referenced and even if they were they would be opinion. Whoever first put that info in used those words. Sorry if I was snarky. I see lots of things I don't agree with on Wiki, but a lot of the time, when I check the reference or google the item, the Wiki stuff is correct - as wrong as it sounds to me! Bob98133 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Miracle of Geneva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Miracle of Geneva. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your participation in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Umpirer...

...is basically a really bad pun on "Roman Emperor". You're watching for that article about Romanians and "throwing it out of the game" if it shows up again. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

note for u

there is a note for you here [5]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

KAL 007: Inside the Cockpit...

...was also nominated for deletion here but no followup action was taken. Can you have a look at it? Guycalledryan (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Wikisource asking for someone to transwiki it so it can be deleted here. Shouldn't take long. Neıl 龱 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stig

Just a quick note to ask why you marked my edit to The Stig as vandalism? Tidying up what I considered to be superfluous punctuation marks can hardly be called vandalism! Bettia (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No harm done :) Bettia (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ibiza question

Do you think the infobox is okay the way it is currently? I ask, because you and I have butted heads on the issue of cn tags before in the article, and because I do respect your opinion (though I disagree with it). I think the image of the flag is pretty huge, and pretty much dominates the entire infobox. As the [Island] infobox pretty much sets it up that way, I was thinkng that perhaps, as it is as much a administrative division of Spain that, say Andalusia or Valencia is, wouldn't it be better to use the [autonomous community] infobox instead? I understand that it is in fact an island where the aforementioned examples are not, but it would seem pretty clear that the article shouldn't differentiate between th other admin districts of Spain. Especially when we already have the Ibicine coat of arms in wiki-commons. I would like to change the infobox, but not having done so before, I was wondering if - assuming you have no major disagreement with the substitution - you could kind of keep an eye on the article while I do so, and catch any major cock-up I may make. I would like to expand my wiki-knowledge about how to do these sorts of things. I will wait to hear back from you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize you have your hands full, but I could still use the assist. Let me know when you can lend a hand, or let me know if you can't find he time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did look at this yesterday then promptly forgot to reply. I agree the autonomous community infobox would work better. The only real difference is the flag would become smaller and the coat of arms would be included, which makes sense to me. Neıl 龱 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the work I have been doing on the Ibiza article citation stuff is located here, in the the article in its former 'cn' target-tagged state, which lets me know where the citations are needed. It's essentially a study guide for me to find good citations. You can see an example of the Autonomous template there, above the island template. I've opened a discussion about the proposed changes (to the infobox template and certain section headings/direction) in the article discussion, and am awaiting feedback from there as well as the Autonomous template talk page, as I've also proposed an addition of 'location' and 'coordinates' entries to the template. You input at eiher one of those locations would be really helpful, as would any advice you might wish to render about the guide (which is not intended as a substitute for the live page, but as a testing/reference point from which to add changes). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could I trouble you to let me know of any comments you might have about the above post? I've kinda been waiting to hear from you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oof, sorry. Perhaps I am being dense, but I don't understand what you want me to say ... just be bold and make your changes, they seem fine to me. Neıl 龱 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the flap last time, i wanted to sit and wait for a while, to get some feedback before going on an edit frenzy. It's been about a week, so here we go. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

still needed

Your input is still needed here [6]. Kindly close the loop.--talk-to-me! (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations - warning

Dear Neil, I'm replying to your following comment :

Articles you created, such as Nuclear micro-battery, CIFMS and Knowledge Acquisition and Documentation Structuring, and images such as Image:MRP2.jpg are copyright violations. Do not steal content from others and add it to Wikipedia again, or your account will be indefinitely blocked. Neıl 龱 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to know the reference of the four articles you deleted and the picture have been sourced from y OWN WORK (4 books've written between 1989 and 2007:

• Nanocomputers & Swarm Intelligence, John Wiley-ISTE, London 2008, ISBN 9781847040022
• Inventer l'ordinateur du XXI° siècle, Hermes Science Publishing, London 2006, ISBN 2746215160
• Principles of Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, John Wiley, New York, 1992, ISBN 047193450X
• Les nouvelles perspectives de la production, Dunod 1990, ISBN 9782040198206

I am theauthor of the four abovementioned books and have the permission of the publisher for those type of excerpt. (

I've mentionned them in the reference section the reference section. I think I've clearly mentionned the pages of the book in the bibliography section).

So please be so kind and restore the deleted articles.

Regards JBW--Jbw2 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jbw. Thank you for your response. In order to clear this up, I looked up the author of these works and yes, they have the initials JBW. I also found an email address for the author of these works, Jean-Baptiste Waldner, that ends in ..@wanadoo.fr. In order to confirm you are the same JBW as the author of these works, please send me an email via Special:EmailUser/Neil, ensuring that this ..@wanadoo.fr email address is activated in your preferences. I hope, as an author, you will understand it is important that we are careful with people's intellectual property. If this is confirmed I will immediately restore the work. Regards, Neıl 龱 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, as suggested, i've confirm my email address, but instead of an aknowledgement, I've noticed that the picture MRP2 has been definitively deleted. Could you please restore my items articles, picture on commons, pictore insertion in other articles,... ? Thanks --Jbw2 (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Working on it! Neıl 龱 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

D'accord. Je crois que les articles ont ete restaures. L'image a egalement ete restauree, et je suis reinsere l'image dans les trois articles dans lesquels il est apparu precedemment. Nous vous remercions de votre patience en m'aidant a resoudre ce probleme! Neıl 龱 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil for your quick restore. I'm a little curious, just a question : what has actually been the initial raison which leads to this recent copyright campaign about my articles ? --Jbw2 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a message from an administrator on the French Wikipedia, Zouavman Le Zouave (talk · contribs) - see [7]. Neıl 龱 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be helpful to drop a line to Zouavman, letting him know the results of your investigation, so they can reinstate the articles deleted there. Seems only fair to save Jbw a bit of hassle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Already left a note on ZLZ's talk page. I just realised I forgot to respond to your above, Arcayne, hang on ... Neıl 龱 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil for your help ! --Jbw2 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil, Soory for coming back with further requests ! here is another absolutely unfounded attack I would ask you to plaid on Wiki Commons if requested : see the message from Creasy "Vu les antécédents, le nombre et la qualité des images, je suis d'avis qu'une demande de suppression soit faite sur commons. Il y a si peu de chances qu'il les ai réalisées lui même... --Creasy±‹porter plainte› 19 juin 2008 à 14:29 (CEST) ". Since I know the autocratic and very expeditious process of the french wikipedia board, I've decided to focus on the english wikipedia, wikicommons and citizendium only. So I will continue to publish on Commons and need to get the full confidence of the Commons administrators board. So I will provide them with ABSOLUTELY ALL the evidence that all the work I've published is mine. Sorry for disturbing you with these childish debate. Kind Regards----Jbw2 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not an administrator on Commons, and cannot help you there. If you have problems there, please then ask the Commons administrators to come and speak to me for verification. Neıl 龱 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I hope I can come back ASAP with better news ! Kind Regards--Jbw2 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly mistake

Hi I just made a rather silly mistake in uploading a photo of myself. After uploading I realised it is still quite recognisable and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to delete it for me. Thanks very much for your assistance. --The High Commander (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Neıl 龱 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much it's much appreciated. --The High Commander (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jbw / Jbw2

Hi Zouavman Le Zouave. You posted a message to the Administrator's Noticeboard ([8]) about Jbw2 (talk · contribs), who you stated was a copyright violator, and who had lied to the administrators about his contributions. Jbw2 is Jean-Baptiste Waldner, a fact which I have confirmed via email. I have therefore restored his articles and image contributions.

Waldner owns the copyright to his work, and is entitled to release the work to en.Wikipedia. If fr:Utilisateur:Jbw is the same person, then he may also be entitled to release this work onto fr.Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Since I am not an experienced user in the field of copyright and republishing on Wikipedia, I have informed the other administrators of fr.wp, who, I am sure, will do what is best. Thanks again! Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 14:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil, first of all thanks again for having defended my integrity on wikipedia. In order to avoid any additional debate, may I ask you to post a brief post after your comment on the admin notice board here [9]? Thanks in advance--Jbw2 (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That page is already in the archives, but I have made a note there - [10]. Neıl 龱 10:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo

Hi, Neil. About this user, to whom you recently issued a final warning: I would say he's continuing his disruption. First, see this edit and summary. Again the blanket Moldovan --> Moldavian change, the insertion of bad links, the dismissal of King (see previously here), which he does with no justification. Second, after I asked him not to, he went right ahead and split Cinema of the Moldavian SSR from Cinema of Moldova, which is rather absurd, given that a) those places encompass the same territory, b) the latter is very brief, and c) no other country has splits like that (except perhaps Russia (1, 2, 3), but there there's at least a case to be made for splitting). Biruitorul ^Talk 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to look at this: WP:ANI#More_Moldovan/Romanian edit warring. His friend Xasha is no angel either. andy (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Block shopping. Great!Xasha (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And now there's this too. You've got to hand it to the guy, he doesn't give up easily! andy (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He will now, presumably - I guess we can consider the matter closed. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's only a month, frankly. Neıl 龱 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyclophonica

I started an article entitled Cyclophonica and I accidentally deleted it. It said you had deleted it. What can I to to retrieve what I had written and restart the page again? Or were you actually supervising what I wrote in real time and decided not to accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loftyapex (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Neıl 龱 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP image policy

Hi, I can see the stretch of how BLP can cover an image on twink (gay slang) but there isn't a scrap of information at WP:BLP that seems to connect that this image was in some way violating policy. If I'm missing the obvious please let me know. Perhaps the policy should be spelled out a bit better for those who are trying to understand the nuance. Also simply stating in the edit summary "article requires self-identified or RS identified "twink" rather than someone who fits the description" would have at least helped explain the deletion. Also, I noticed someone has re-added the image so apparently this issue isn't clear. I think I first added it so it wasn't clear to me. Banjeboi 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Neil, you're engaged in an edit war. You should block yourself. 69.247.176.147 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good faith removal of vandalism, copyright, or BLP violations is not edit waring, 69.247.176.147. Please don't attack other editors per WP:NPA, especially for doing their job. Discuss any issues you may have with their actions in a civil way, rather that lashing out. It doesn't help you or your cause, it hurts Wikipedia, and could get you blocked. — Becksguy (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

t s dt wrrng whn t's cntnt dspt, nd tht's wht ths s. WP:BLP dsn't sy n fckng wrd bt mgs. t cvrs wrtng styl, xtrnl lnks, crtcsm nd prs, ctgrs, srcs nd srcng, nd prvcy bt nt n fckng wrd bt mgs. S ths fckng prck shld blck hmslf fr mnth lk sd. My bd, frgt dmns r bv wklw. 69.247.176.147 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Disemvowelled. Be nicer in future. I don't want to have to block all your IPs, Allstarecho, so I suggest you knock off the cursing. And you can try to ruleslawyer all you want, but there wasn't a content dispute.Neıl 龱 06:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements to get the ball rolling. Banjeboi 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't been notified - there is a short thread at WP:ANI#Gratuitously long block by User:Neil for this issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This block seems very excessive. I see that you're not currently active, but I do expect that you'll offer a compelling explanation upon your return. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user. Prodego ^talk 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to explain it, preferrably at the ANI thread on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wknight94, for having the courtesy to inform me. Explained at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Explanation. Neıl 龱 09:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you, particularly for the way you've handled it all. I've marked it as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, after glancing over developments; don't have much online time at this moment. Very much appreciate your openness to discussion and community review. For the most part, anything I'd say now has already been said by somebody else. Understand where you were coming from a bit better, now. I'm still a touch concerned that such a heavy hammer was used so quickly, but you've responded to those concerns reasonably and there's not much more that can be said or done about that at this point, aside from everybody just moving forward. On the bright side, this little incident has brought some attention to the need for BLP-mindful image selection. Anyhow, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hey Neil - I see that a week ago you protected {{Guideline list}}. Given the fluid nature of guidelines (and that I don't see that this template was ever vandalized), could you please unprotect it? There are a couple of corrections I need to make. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Euro 2008 music

Other than yourself, not one person on the talk page has said they think that the goal music should be included in the article, yet you added it anyway. Why? – PeeJay 10:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I mis-read his comment. Regardless, I doubt that three people expressing an opinion constitutes a consensus. At least wait for a few more replies. – PeeJay 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, but only to avert an edit war, as it really should be up to you to prove why it should be included rather than up to me to prove why it shouldn't. – PeeJay 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnoldswick Town F.C.‎

Someone else managed to respond before me - basically there is no Step 10. "Step" is a term used to refer to Non-League divisions (i.e. 5th tier and below), so Step 6 = Tier 10.

Plus although there is nothing on the WP:FOOTY page, I can assure you that it has been established consensus that notability is inherited only down to Step 6 - see an example on the talk page here (March 2007). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bored

Woo, look what I made:

It's so pretty! Neıl 龱 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And another:

Anything interesting? Neıl 龱 10:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Man - they are superb. What package did you use? Pedro :  Chat  10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot take the credit (and you could have clicked on the images!) - http://www.wordle.net. All I did was cut and paste the text and keep refreshing until a nice one appeared. Neıl 龱 10:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh - actually click the image - there's an idea :). Cool stuff matey. Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that website's licensing terms are incompatible with Wikipedia. They use the CC-NC-SA license ... the "NC" means "non-commercial". Under WP:CSD I3, it should be deleted on site unless you have sought and obtained a different permission. --B (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oof, I did not realise that. Balls! I'll email the site owner. Neıl 龱 12:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Images created by the Wordle.net web application are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License (cc-by). Only the site itself is cc-by-nc. See here. Neıl 龱 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*awesomeness* miranda 17:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Badgering people

You must simply misunderstand. I am badgering no one. I have simply formally asked and requested the fellow to consider resigning his position as admin. I have been civil, polite and formal. He is absolutely free to ignore my request, remove it from his talk page- whatever Cryptic would like to do. I realize you would like me to stop but I shan't. As long as I maintain a civil, polite and appropriate way of conveying my interrogatives (which I clearly have) then there is nothing wrong. I hope you have a great day! Bstone (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For all I care, you can ask him to resign once a day, every day, for the next fifteen years. Civil - and by that I mean the Wikipedia special definition of WP:CIVIL, does not equate with polite. You were WP:CIVIL, because you didn't swear, but you weren't polite. [11], [12]. Neıl 龱 07:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I was looking at the huggle program, and it looks great, although it needs the rollback feature. I requested a couple of weeks ago, although was denied (i had only started fighting about a day before, and was told i needed more experience). However i am wondering, how much experience is needed? E.g how many edits/weeks would you be looking for? Thanks, --Nappymonster (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Me? None. Would you like rollback? I don't have anything to do with Huggle though, I hate that sort of thing. Neıl 龱 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

KingKevinI

Give this guy his long overdue block notice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your sig

Your sig is giving me some issues [13] as it links to your page which takes up the whole talk page which means I've got to edit the page the hard way :(. I'm using Firefox 2.0. Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be an issue with my browser which seemed to correct itself for now. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Checkuser and Oversight access will not be given to Arbitrators by default"

One point you might want to consider here is that there is presently no means by which someone may be granted access to the CU/OS logs without having access to the associated tool itself.

This is less of an issue in the case of CU, since that's pretty self-contained and has its own appeal path; but in the case of oversight, I think our not having access to the log could be problematic. There have been a number of disputes where oversight was involved, either because some of the relevant material had been oversighted, or because the use of the tool itself was under scrutiny. If we're not able to view oversighted material, then we can't really deal with cases of that sort.

This could presumably be resolved by introducing a way to grant log access without tool access—an "ombudsman" user-right, essentially—but that's something that would have to go to the developers, and I'm not sure how feasible it would be to implement. Kirill ^(prof) 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. For the reader, this refers to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#III._Scope. Neıl 龱 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the election of the Arbcom

Given objections last time around, Mtmelendez and I had discussed improvements to the election process for arbitrators. Essentially, we proposed a 30 day workshop to set policy (who can vote, format, etc), followed by nominations for 14 days, THEN 14 days to discuss and question the candidates, followed by the election itself. It scaled to 90 days total - BUT, now that we have this nice RFC going on, we could (in theory) roll the election workshop into that. The result is that, if there is support for the idea, We could have an election process starting on 1 August with nominations, 1 September for voting, and the new tranche delta would be seated on or about 1 October for a 1 year and 9 month term, which would come up for election in June 2010. Then the next tranche would come up on 1 November with noms, 1 December for voting, and would be seated on 1 January for a 2 year term ending in December 2011. The key is, once we have a process in place, the election itself is greatly simplified. Do you think it would be worthwhile to post a proposal at the RFC? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page! Again, for the reader, this refers to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#I._Expansion. Neıl 龱 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blue-linked Wikipedia:Arbcom electoral reform; where would you recommend I post it at the RFC? As a See Also? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you may also like to post it somewhere below any relevant suggestions relating to the expansion of the Arbitration Committee. Neıl 龱 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the insight. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestions at the ArbCom RFC

I've been reading over the reform portion of the RFC this morning, and your suggestions seem very well thought out and interesting. I'm not certain I support all of them yet, but there's some good room for discussion there. I had a thought while reading through them you might like to consider. In hand with your suggestion to increase the number of tranches, I feel cases could move faster if a cap was placed on the number of arbs working an individual case. If, for example, we had 28 Arbs, we might set a cap of 5 or 7 Arbs per case. That is, when a case is opened 5 or 7 of the currently active Arbs would be assigned, and only those Arbs would vote on that case. I'm not sure what method to choose Arbs per case would be best, only that I would give preference to active Arbs with the lightest caseload. Anyway, this is just the inkling of an idea...not well formed enough for me to contribute, so I thought I'd pass it along to you to see if you do anything with it. If it (or any varient) appeals to you, run with it...if you don't, my feelings won't be hurt. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That would end up being sort of a circuit court/grand jury sort of arrangement, where a small number are active from a larger pool. Not a bad idea, actually. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the one issue with this would be determining which Arbs take which case. Doing it by caseload would be the simplest way, but having worked on assigning cases before (not on Wikipedia!), I can state that caseload is not the sole determinant:

1. How do you define caseload? Number of cases? Some cases are far more complex and time-consuming than others.
2. What happens if an Arbitrator selected has no interest or knowledge of a particular case?
3. What happens if an Arbitrator not selected has a massive interest or amount of knowledge relating to a particular case?
4. What if recusals need to take place?
5. Even with shorter terms, there is always going to be times when Arbitrators are unavailable (vacations, illness, kids, etc etc) - how would this factor in?

All the above relates to "how to select the pool". Another issue is people not getting the same treatment - while all Arbitrators would be hoped to be equally capable wise and impartial, there's always going to be some differences between Arbs, and if you restrict the base to 5 (or even 7) Arbs, you lose one of the benefits of expanding the Arbitrator base in the first place, which is diluting the possible bias any one strongly-spoken arbitrator (consciously or unconsciously) can impose. I'm in favour of the more eyes the better, I would not necessarily agree with the idea as it is. Neıl 龱 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

These are some very good concerns. Recusals or vacations wouldn't be too bad, it's simply something you should consider before opening the case (or if an Arb needed to depart suddenly, a "free" Arb would step into their spot on that case). But the initial selection will be the biggest area of contention. As you say, how could we balance caseload? And gauging interest/experience isn't as bad as the dark side of that coin: COI. Before long, someone's bound to complain about some Arb being assigned to their case.

Still, I'm not sure it's entirely unworkable...I just admit to not fully see how to work it myself. If I can think of something better, I'll let you know. Still, if I were you I would consider that expanding the active pool of Arbitrators without improving their focus on cases could result in overall slower cases. The more active arbitrators, the higher the majority line on votes. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My images

Errmm, why did you delete my images? I use them on my userpage and switch them from time to time - there was no reason to delete them at all. Please restore them. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Neıl 龱 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking back on it - you're probably right, I don't see a need for them to be on here and it does give an impression of facebook. I've gone ahead and redeleted them, sorry for messing you around. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Stern warning

C'mon, Neil, that was classic. Well, your response was actually what made me laugh out loud, but really, the whole thread should be archived. Tan | 39 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it once I realised the user had already been blocked, anyway. Neıl 龱 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Rochelle, New York

You declined the G5 speedy deletion of Template:New Rochelle, New York. G5 is for "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." The page's only editor was R.T.Gellar (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Jvolkblum (talk · contribs). The criteria does not have an exception for "perfectly good edit", so could please provide a valid reason for declining the speedy deletion. BlueAzure (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If a rule is stopping you from making the encyclopedia better, ignore it. WP:IAR. Neıl 龱 08:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice

Thank you for the notice but I think I'll refrain from commenting re: that. I have already spoken to many curious individauls re: my typing and quite frankly it's all giving me a headache. Feel free to continue to make me on WP:ANI though. I'm sure that is what the page is there for. Smith Jones (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't resist fixing your typos. I appreciate you're acting in good faith, SJ, it's just the typing. I hope I am not being rude, but have you ever considered looking on the net for a free program to help you improve them? Neıl 龱 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Smith Jones is in one way one of the greatest assets this project has; he's the guy who sits quietly at the back of the class, but when he speaks, it comes right from the heart, and although it may not be pointed in the right direction or couched in the best wording, it's always well-meant. I've taken a look at his contribs, and his edit summaries, and by and large I think they are well to the point. The only other user I can compare him with functionally is User:Hopiakuta, whose exploits have been long explored on various noticebards. The difference is that Hopiakuta is virtually impenetrable and Smith Jones is way up front. It's a shame that Smith Jones feels his contributions are seen as amusing, but in a way, to be honest, they are; however, it's extemely difficult in an environment like this to home in on the person behind the edits. We can advise Smith Jones till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day unless he's actually being disruptive, we should live with him. His inadvertent spranglings of teh Elgnish languiage are precious and should be treasured; many writers and comedians have tried, and failed, to make a living from what he does naturally. Fair play to him, I say, but with the proviso that I'd like him to have a little more judgment about when and where to intervene. --Rodhullandemu 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WR Article

Looks good, if you can find any more RS before you either take it into mainspace or DRV (and I'm not sure that actually applies as you have created this article from scratch and are not asking for the recreation of a deleted article), then I'd do so. I'll have a look later. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished

Hi Neil - since you kindly watchlisted Lyme disease in response to the AN/I thread, I'd like to ask you to look at Wanaqueling (talk · contribs). This brand-new account was created a couple of hours after Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs) was blocked for tendentious disruption, and immediately picked up the same argument where Foundinkualalumpur left off. For good measure, Wanaqueling admittedly "knows" Foundinkualalumpur. I was going to handle this myself as an obvious sock/meatpuppet of a recently blocked editor, but given my involvement I thought it might be preferable to ask you to review it. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obvious SPA created solely to further the edit war - blocked. Neıl 龱 10:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

verify sources

I don't think those sources say exactly what you think they do - I commented on the pre-article talk page. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Neil, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Abbad

Hi Neil. I recently created Abbad, and I noticed it was previously deleted. Do you think you could advise on whether the non-notable pro-wrestler (whose article got deleted) should be added to the disambiguation page or not? From looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Abbad, I see that the only article mentioning the name in a wrestling context is Tim Roberts (wrestler). Incidentally, that wrestler taking the ring name of Abbad looks to be a very interesting story of a name migrating across the ages from Arabia to Puerto Rico via Spain! Islamic companion to the Prophet in 7th century Arabia, Kings of Seville in the Iberian peninsula under Islamic rule in the 11th century, and a Spanish Benedictine monk heading off to Puerto Rico in the 18th century, though presumably the name Abbad was widespread in Spain by that time. It only remains to find out why the wrestler took the ring name of Abbad! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother until and unless a decent article was created on the wrestler, which is unlikely, frankly. Neıl 龱 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Socratic contributor

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your comments, suggestions and views found here. I've found them educational, sound, and reasonable. And if you ever find yourself the subject of RfAR, don't allow beans to be a bridge to Phaedo. Theres always a back door. :) Yours in humor — MaggotSyn 10:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please check all links. And for your perusal, just in case you haven't read.

Wow, thank you. Both heartening and cryptic! A good combination. :) Neıl 龱 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I really hate sidetracking important discussions into ad hominem debates but responding to a good-faith constructive comment with the reply "Cack." is not civil. This is the last I will say on the matter, and I trust we can both keep subsequent comments more polite and constructive. Thanks, BigBlueFish (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the interested reader - [14]. And probably for the confused non-British/Australian reader - cack. A question - if I had said "Rubbish", would it have been more, less, or equally not civil? Neıl 龱 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where I come from, "Rubbish" would indeed be more civil, as "cack" has more immediately offensive and scatological connotations. However I'd much sooner recommend less gratuitous use of these kinds of interjections, especially for this reason. It doesn't really add to the post beyond affirming "I disagree" which is implied by the next statement. It would also have been more acceptable if you were using it to introduce a more thoughtful objection than "Read WP:SELFPUB." which really didnt answer anything. I suppose also you might consider an exclamation mark, to make it clear that no offense is intended. Cack! BigBlueFish (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I come from where you come from, unless you're an international student. Exclamation marks do make it more satisfying, also. Cack! Cack! :) Neıl 龱 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In the States, cack means to kill. As in, "I rolled up on the dude and cacked him with my Nine". Yes. I am down. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Word. :) Neıl 龱 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

???

Was this deliberate, or one hell of a coincidence? Either way, amusing! :) Acalamari 23:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. o_O That's the oddest coincidence I've ever seen... GlassCobra 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I was wondering if anyone would notice that. Not a coincidence, merely bored. All good edits, though! Neıl 龱 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I only noticed because your username appeared on my watchlist, and I looked at your recent contributions (which I normally do with the user who appears at the top of my watchlist). Neat! Acalamari 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Yes, "Neil Wikipedia" is me on Facebook, if you were wondering why I sent you a friend request, whoever you may be. All feel free to add me! Neıl 龱 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added you. My name's got strange consonants in odd places. You'll know when you see it. GlassCobra 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot malfunction

Did the bot go whack just now, or was it wacky for a while before you blocked it? I'm asking because the bot tweaked a page I was working on a few days ago, and if it may have screwed something up I do not want to find out about it the hard way. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What page was it? Neıl 龱 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the battleship pages, I can not recall off the top of my head (I think maybe one of the five Iowas rated at FA). If you give me a little time I can firm that up some. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the bot's working, I am not. See WP:ANI. Neıl 龱 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew. Thats a load off. Trying to juggle half a dozen FAs to maintain them at currently level for an FT is getting to be quite the challenge, and I was concerned there fore a moment that if the bot went wacky it may have screwed up one of the articles. Running five to seix PR/FARs a year for the big gun ships is hard enough as is without having to deal with incorrect bot edits :) Thanks for the swift reply, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I like your new user page. Very pleasing to the eye :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

Thanks for remembering me (old name) :-)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

 Frank  |  talk  13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Neil

Five minutes - I'm guessing it's reverted in less. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ingrid-Betancourt.jpg

If the image is a copyvio, shouldn't it be tagged as such? I wish I knew the template name so I could do it myself, but... 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is tagged, but as it's on Commons, it's being discussed there. Neıl 龱 08:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ingrid-Betancourt.jpg

Dude, i'm a sysop of pt.wikipedia and i can guarentee that image its originally licensed as copyrighted material but after the first publication at Colombian News Agency, Agência Brasil (official news agency of Brazil) ask if its possible to Colombian news agency to re-licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.5. So, the actual license its Creative Commons, or its not stay at the page (and in many journals of Brazil, believe me). PS1: Sorry by my bad english. PS 2: The name of her its Ingrid Betancourt, not Íngrid Betancourt . Leandromartinez (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link for evidence of this? Neıl 龱 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of all i haved sayed. Why not try to remove from pt.wikipedia.org? Try... Leandromartinez (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have said is not evidence. What you do on pt.wikipedia is not my concern. Neıl 龱 08:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I just think if you want to do the job of the people of commons, maybe you want to do our job as sysop too in pt.wikipedia... Leandromartinez (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak Portuguese. I hope other pt-wiki admins have a better understanding of copyright than you, Leandro. Neıl 龱 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

warned user is edit-warring again

See my comment on his talk page [15] (providing a diff in case he blanks my message).

Also please take a look at the RFC we are preparing to see just how deep and long-standing the problem is. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How to...

And where to go to ask for an IP range block. I've found two IP folk who have been using revolving IP addresses to edit, and edit poorly. It would be nice to do away with these folk. Halp! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI - I don't really do rangeblocks, but that's the place to go. Neıl 龱 08:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"proposterose"

No need to ask Abd for a retraction, at least not on my behalf. I can take it as well as give it. Let it stand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not just potentially offensive to you, Bugs. Neıl 龱 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's offensive to you, then that's another story. But it was directed at me, in the context of the discussion immediately above it, by a user who's already annoyed with me. Whatever. As you wish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roadfan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roadfan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nakon 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:

The big green box at Talk:Liancourt Rock would help you understand it. I believe the reverter, Logitech95 (talk · contribs) = 128.120.161.137 (talk · contribs) violates not only the written rule; Naming lameness but also "slow it down" and "edit summary" per the Arb Committee ruling. Those are all immediately blockable conduct. The guy inserted original research to Mike Honda/ POV contents to Korea under Japanese rule without consensus/discussion over several articles. If you have time, can you look at my and his/her contribution history? He/she even blindly reverted unrelated articles of him, such as Yaksik, Kimera (singer) which I edited yesterday, any my field area in Wiki. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I will have a look at his contributions, but if it's just content stuff then I can't really do much unless it gets especially disruptive. Neıl 龱 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh..my computer is going very slow to reply your answer. It is content stuff combined with his inappropriate edit summaries like this one. on contrary to his mention of "shame", he deleted some info related to military conscription. Not only that, he followed me as retaliation, and the Liancourt Rock matter can make him immediate block per the Arbcome rule. His edit on Namdaemun is clear sing of bad-faith. --Caspian blue (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "warning"

What is the deal with "warning" an editor who made one edit only at the articles, and didn't edit war at all after the edit was reverted? I'm asking you to remove the unnecessary and completely unwarranted "warning" from my talkpage. If you haven't done so soon, I'll do it myself. I've never seen anything like that in my short time here. To compare what BC did to what I did is just so far outside the pale of reasonable assumptions that I don't even know what to say. S. Dean Jameson 10:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• And for the record, I've made it crystal clear it wasn't about the NFCC for me. I hold no opinion on that. S. Dean Jameson 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  If you had read any of my communications on the matter, after I made my one edit, you would have known that "warning" me was not only unnecessary but inappropriate. How could you possibly have thought I was a danger to "edit war" when I made it clear I wouldn't? Please reply here, as I want no further stain of "warning" about this matter on my talkpage. (And, for the record, it's not about me "feeling defensive", it's about the propriety of putting a "warning" about "edit warring" on the talkpage of a user who wasn't edit warring, and had made it clear that they wouldn't edit war to restore their edits. What you did was improper, it's as simple as that.) S. Dean Jameson 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • One edit? Really? [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Is it coincidence that these reverts were all to edits Betacommand had edited? You made the same revert over a series of articles; that's edit-warring. Don't do it again, please, and don't be so duplicitous. Neıl 龱 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Are you serious? I made one edit to multiple articles, and explained why I did so in the ongoing discussion at ANI. When it was pointed out to me that I shouldn't have done so, I offered a mea culpa (I can't remember if it was at ANI, Iridescent's talk, or both) and didn't make even one more edit on any of those pages. That you find "edit warring" in my behavior there is beyond belief. Did you even bother to look through my contributions to the discussion about Betacommand? And stop dropping the loaded "your edit warring" on my talkpage. I was not edit warring. S. Dean Jameson 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Fine: You were not edit warring. The above links are magical, mystery, spooky diffs that don't really exist. Other editors also did not notice this behaviour ([29] [30]). You were completely right, and were not edit warring. Neıl 龱 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Please don't be snarky. The above diff you posted from Lucas (and the one from Iridescent as well) was part of a discussion between them and me that led me to see that I should not have simply reverted BC's removals. My initial thought was that since they were made directly after he had been unblocked for promising not to make those type of edits, that they should simply be reverted en masse. Lucas and Iridescent, over the course of a lengthy discussion) helped me see that was the wrong interpretation. How does your dropping "warnings" on my page HOURS later accomplish anything other than to besmirch my reputation, and frustrate me a bit? S. Dean Jameson 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Because now Betacommand can't complain that I did not warn both sides. Because your mass-reverting was unhelpful and contributed to the bad atmosphere. Because it may have preemptively stopped you edit-warring over this (it may not - you may not have edit warred anyway, or you may edit war anyway). Neıl 龱 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Warning me to placate BC is not a very good reason. As for your other reasoning, please point to any portion of my contribution to the discussion regarding BC (or my contributions to the NFCC talkpage) that led you to believe I was showing the potential to edit war. It's not there. In fact, I explicitly said I would not revert the removal after Lucas, Iridescent, and I discussed it. In all seriousness, check the discussion. I've been civil and polite throughout, even when frustrated by your "warning." And I made it clear that my reversions of BC were due to a misunderstanding of how his removals of images should be handled after his unblock. I'm sincerely asking you to look over the discussion I participated in following those diffs you posted and then tell me you think I intended to "edit war" or that I'm truly a danger to take up an "edit war" against Betacommand. S. Dean Jameson 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  (undent)Here's a link to the discussion Iridescent and I had about the situation, just so you're aware. He's been very helpful to me in "learning the ropes", and giving me some sage advice in the last few days. I really don't have the energy to look up the specific ANI discussion where I explained myself--especially since that page is now off my watchlist. S. Dean Jameson 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding user page User:GHcool...

I am copying in Neil, Gwen Gale, and LessHeard vanU, since all three of you commented here. So... what should we do? GHcool has made ut abundantly clear he doesn't want to compromise, so we either decree it acceptable, or an admin takes action. There was already a no-consensus MfD. RfC? Mediation? Any ideas? --Jaysweet (talk)

The discussion has centralised at User talk:Jaysweet#User:GHcool user page. There is an apparent need for a "dove" advocate, since one hawk has spoken and another acted, but any input would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Hoops

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quantum Hoops, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Woopah! I'm getting good at this DYK lark. Neıl 龱 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI

Out of courtesy, should tell you you're the subject of discussion here. While it's Not My Place etc, I'd really love to let the topic die; if ever there's a topic that doesn't need one more word written about it, βC is surely it. – iridescent 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Neıl 龱 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New user award

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For having a mind of your own and for usually being right, at least whenever I seem to see you. Please keep up the good work. John (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Neıl 龱 08:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I took your user page off my watchlist. So you can make your edit summaries as long as you like now :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review DYK

On 8 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wikipedia Review, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncongratulations, Neil. It's been summarily removed - Alison ^❤ 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make DYK submissions that are essentially Wikipedia-centric (as in, would not exist without Wikipedia). It looks... well, narcissistic. DS (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Neil for not coming here sooner. I actually think the WR article has been extremely well written, in a neutral way - it certainly has a place on WP. I removed the DYK because people have been outed on the site and I personally believed it was a smack in the face to our contributors to have this article on our main page - it sorta glamourises the site and that just isn't fair (that's nothing against the hard work that you obviously put into creating an article that should clearly be included in WP). I hope you understand - it was on the main page for a couple of hours so you should certainly take your credit for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was frankly surprised when I saw it got on there in the first place. Oh well! Neıl 龱 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spot Image

Thanks! Will do :) guillom 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)