User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Low and other piracy related thing

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
When I first saw Edward Low the first thing I thought was "holy crap that's freakin' amazing!" Great job on the article! Deflagro C/T 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see that you were not in the Directory of Participants in the Wikiproject Piracy. It would be great to have you in on the project because as you may have noticed I think I am the only one active in it right now. What I need help on is I am the only contributor to the Portal:Piracy (the creator even told me he wouldn't be active enough for its upkeep) and sometimes I get behind on adding new things so I was hoping you could help me out with it. If you could reply on my talk page that'd be great! Thanks! Deflagro C/T 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've looked and had trouble finding sources on Charles Harris. The only thing I found was in the Pirates' Who's Who (which is wrong a lot of the time) and that is the only thing that makes up the stub right now. Good luck with it! I'll look into putting it in an ad also. Thanks for the idea! Deflagro C/T 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished with the ad. Here it is! Couldn't figure out an internal link so here is an external link to the Commons page. Deflagro C/T 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! That made me laugh! I just posted the ad on the Project's talk page and hopefully this will get a few more members. Thanks for your help and idea! Deflagro C/T 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message right before I went out of town and didn't have time to respond. First off: Congrats! You did a great job on that article and it deserves it. I will try and look over it in the next few days and give it a review!Deflagro C/T 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.23.17.229

I noticed you blocked User:82.23.17.229 please bear in mind that this is one of numerous socks see here for just a few of them --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 11:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP I blocked was the only one that made personal attacks. The others have edited Scottish articles, but given it's a Scottish IP range, that's to be expected. Neil ム 11:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Resque Squadron Move Request

Greetings, I'm tring to get the current move request sorted so we can move on to other ones if we need to. Would you mind stating your position in: Article Rescue Squadron Talk #Requested_move, Thanks Fosnez 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pirate

Hey Neil. Cool little story you've got there. Ya, the page is in good shape. Here's what I'd note if it were on FAC:

  • Is the lead sufficient? It's a small article, so the lead doesn't have to be huge but you might have more. Try some totals. "Although he was only active for two years, he achieved noteriety..." "He is known to have captained # ships..." and then give a rough total of raids.
  • You may be over blue-linking slightly. (I think Blackbeard is linked thrice.)
  • Some minor prose redundancy issues (he married a lady named Eliza Marble).
  • Check you're unpacking all the ref info. Some of the web sources have last access date, others not. The only thing I'm somewhat strict about is listing the publisher, as it's the main determinant of reliability.
  • Some one sentence paragraphs. It makes the flow choppy.
  • People might be concerned about the age of the refs.

A last point: is he only and ever referred to as Ned? If so, I don't think it inappropriate to rename the page such and refer to him so. Cheers, Marskell 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this may be a problem: how reliable is this? I can't find publisher info. Marskell 13:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it...

(Courtesy The New Yorker)

Story: Waiting for the uptown No. 1 train, a hare becomes ill and tumbles onto the tracks. "Help me!" the hare shouts to a nearby crow. But the crow is uncertain. "How do I know you won't eat me?" he asks. "I'm helpless," replies the hare. "Besides, hares do not eat crows." Satisfied the crow flutters down from the platform and grips the hare by the scruff of the neck. Suddenly, the hare flips around eats the crow. "That'll show him," he says.

Moral: Hares will eat anything. Marskell 13:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're supposed to get it. Just the usual non-sequitur homour from the Shouts & Murmurs page—I was giggling for an hour. There's a good one about a dog and magic hen but I'll save it if it's not your thing.
The Bibliography you linked seems fine. Somebody may ask at FAC. Marskell 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wondering, Neil:

Neil, I am new to Wiki posting. You have deleted 

* John W. Dickenson (Grafton, NSW, Australia) In 1963: innovative manned kite and hang glider designer.

and I am wondering why? How do we place the guy on the page to satisfy you? The guy is noted for many things; it is just that the only thing so far known about him ....a beginning... has to do with his making a kite in 1963. What would satisfy you? Joefaust http://HangGliderHistory.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.106.81 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Personally, I'd like to see this page unprotected, at least on a trial basis. But I appreciate there may be very good reasons for it being semi-protected I don't fully know about. How about something at the top of the page telling anonymous users who have a real need to contact you to use User talk:Bishzilla or a subpage of this talk page? Neil ム 11:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neil. Thank you for asking nicely. I did notice User:Until(1 == 2) suggesting the same thing on ANI [[1]], and thought it rather a good idea. But I admit I lost momentum when someone else then complained about how wrong it would be to "relegate" some users to a subpage and in any case I have "many tools".[2] I mean, if it's not even good enough... Also, perhaps more cogently, I'm pretty sure I would miss posts on a subpage (including Bishzilla). When my watchlist has almost a hundred new items at the top, as frequently happens, I do sometimes overlook changes to watched pages. Hmm. I have thought of sending anons on to a friend's page, so I'd get help in noticing new posts, but... well, I really don't want the person bugging my friends, any more than myself. You know, every time I've experimentally unprotected, he has noticed it very quickly. It seems unlikely (how does he do that?), but is a fact. Oh... I see you reckon the world wouldn't come to an end.[3] No, very true, and a gracious thought. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think Bishzilla would scare all of the anons away, IMHO. M.(er) 06:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Proxies

Hey! Thanks for the advice :) I'm not planning on blocking them at all.... I'm a little new to be comfortable rangeblocking, or, blocking a prominent company.... BTW, I do a lot of editing on my Axim via opera, too... I didn't know it used a proxy! :( I thought it just used my home / work wi-fi. Anyhow, I appreciate the tip, thanks! :) SQL(Query Me!) 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Mini testing

Test

Opera Mini 4 beta simulator Java browser demo test! 195.189.142.143 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Mini 3 Java simulator test

Earlier one was Opera Mini 4 beta simulator - is the IP different?1 195.189.142.200 17:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signed in test via PDA

Opera Mini Neil ム 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signed out Opera Mini 4 test with PDA

La la la. 195.189.142.149 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signed out Opera Mini 3 test via phone

Tum ti tum. 195.189.142.228 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film

Hey, thanks for the edits, but technically those aren't the editprotected requests, which are located a little higher up on the talk page. But the edits you made should be helpful, too! :) Girolamo Savonarola 17:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look for the big edit-protected alert; I believe the section is called -importance something or another. Girolamo Savonarola 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FiveBarGate

Hi Neil,

With reference to your deletion:

- 13:41, 28 September 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs) deleted "FiveBarGate" ‎ (WP: CSD#G12 - Blatant advertising, no assertion of notability provided)

The Wikipedia Deletion Policy reference you mentioned above states:

“Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.”

Bearing in mind that the deleted article refers to the patented concept of FiveBarGate (US Patent Pending), and not a company or product:

- Does the concept become "non-encyclopaedic" because the inventor, Martin Dippenaar, decided to incorporate a company with the same name?

- Would the content still be regarded at “blatant advertising” if the external link reference to the FiveBarGate Company’s website mentioned above was removed?

The purpose of the FiveBarGate article I posted was to explain the concept as factually as possible, and not to promote any company or product. Clearly by the fact that the concept and the company share the same name, it is difficult to explain the concept without promoting the company, but by no means was this intentional. Could you recommend changes to the content that would make this more explicit?

In future there will most likely be a requirement to post an article about the actual FiveBarGate Company and its products. There are many articles like this in Wikipedia, for example the article Security_token lists many such Company/Product articles (VeriSign, VASCO, Aladdin Knowledge Systems, RSA_Security, etc) that exclusively promote some entity, company or product. At what point does it become possible to post such an article and not be in contravention of the Wikipedia Deletion policy you refer to?

I am new to editing Wikipedia so any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Sergio.

Responded on user's talk page. Neil ム 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place of lies

Dear Sir, you told me that I informed Wikipedians here about Petr K's misconduct on cs:. Your information is not correct. I wrote only about Petr K's misconduct here. Please see[4]. I suppose you are disgusted by Petr K's breach of NPA the same way as me. —V. Z. 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all referring to some trouble between the two of you on cs.wiki. Keep it there, please. Neil ム 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. He wrote: "Your friends and you personally have vandalized articles and offended other users – that's the main reason you (and others) were blocked several times." Do you see any cs:? What would you think if I wrote this about you? How would you behave in such a case?

I just voted against a very bad candidate, you supported him. I don't know why you think that because of my vote my friend and I should be personally attacked. —V. Z. 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Petr K came to cs: on 3 January 2006, I was expelled out of there on 2 September 2005, after being bureaucrat for more than one year. That's why we never met there. But if you wish to discuss cs:, go to Meta:. —V. Z. 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon. Thank you. Drumpler 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dyoh

I toned down the language to remove the biteyness. Take a look and tell me if you think it's better now. bibliomaniac15 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice

As you seem to back and getting involved in stuff, I'm going to assume it's safe to post here now - while protecting Deeceevoice's userpage may be a good idea to stop "edit-warring", removing all the crap is explicitly mandated for in the Arbcom decision on Deeceevoice's conduct Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition. So I have done so, even if you had protected the page on m:The Wrong Version. If it's a massive problem, let me know. Neil ム 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Do not edit protected pages without discussion. First, you discuss, then you edit protected pages. Thx in advance. El_C 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be consensus that this content constitutes a violation as per the Committee's ruling, although I am open to review evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, continuing the very same revert war, while the page is protected because of it, is ... absurd. El_C 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting pages

Applying an Arbcom finding is not edit-warring - again, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition. Therefore, I've undone the page protection. You should probably discuss before protecting. Neil ム 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not continue the revert war after the page has been protected due to this revert war. El_C 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit the protected page again without waiting to conclude the discussion, you will be blocked for disruption. El_C 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so impatient. The page has been protected, period. You have to discuss the issue and not revert. This is not an emergency. El_C 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I question the very soundness of protecting the page in the first place. You do not protect the page for anons and vandals. Please, El C, do not use your admin tools in order to get an upper hand in such disputes. And also, please keep Neil out of this, since he was only acting as per the consensus on the WP:ANI page. Please revert yourself on User:Deeceevoice and participate in the ongoing discussion. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question arises: are you going to try to establish this constitutes a violation of the Committee ruling on her, or revert a protected page a third time, and risk being blocked. I just want you to consider carefully whether a more patient, communicable approach wouldn't be in everyone's best interests, in the immediate moment. As I try to clarify what is what here. Thanks again. El_C 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninvolved in this dispute. And I've seen Committee member Jpgordon revert to the same version twice. On what do you base this bad faith accusations. El_C 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time you, seemingly, blindly defend Neil, Nick. Your accusations are one-sided. Once a page is protected, that means those who edit war chill out. End of story. El_C 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you wheel-warred by unprotecting? Well, I, the uninvolved admin, am out. El_C 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note you are out after reverting to include the offensive content (again!) ([5]) Neil ム 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reveted to the protected version, in the interests of order. El_C 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, that comment was deliberately made to misguide. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to that opinion, as I am to view it as being in bad faith. El_C
As another uninvolved admin, I cannot imagine why you are returning the soapboxing to this userpage El, it is basically advertising a bunch of charities. Even without the arbcom ruling this content would be inappropriate. I also don't think it is appropriate to be threatening blocks over this content dispute. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has removed the soapboxing on his own accord now; with a misleading edit-summary once again. It is quite apparent from the discussion on the admin noticeboard that the comments were soapboxing and inflammatory. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rv to his [Neil's] version" is misleading now? Why all this bad faith? El_C 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Committee member Jpgordon has reverted to that version twice. Thus, I would have hoped Neil would at least explain why it violated that AC ruling before reverting a protected page, then unprotecting it. All with minimal discussion. Whatever, I don't have the energy to deal with him. El_C 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon was reverting sockpuppets, and not acting in the capacity of an Arbitration Committee member. It is also advisable to act only after grasping the details of a situation rather than behaving like... what some people term... "apparatchik". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of reverts to/from that version, so I felt it might be better to stop the edit warring. El_C 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? WTF? Have you blocked El C, Dan Tobias and Jpgordon as well, or are you just trying to bully anons? Guettarda 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like over-reacting, Guettarda. The sock is a shared IP address and was probably trolling. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the page because I don't believe in harassment. Please don't call me a troll. Guettarda 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, was that you? I guess you should have used your own account then. Not calling you a troll, I said it was probably trolling. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got logged out somehow. But that's precisely my point - if Neil would have blocked me had I been logged in, he needs to re-instate the block on my user account. But you should never block someone just because they aren't logged it. It's an abuse of your blocking privileges. Guettarda 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily true, as the IP appeared to be someone using their IP to avoid scrutiny and thus was blocked as a sock. Since it turns out not to be that case, and it was simply a mistake to have logged out, then I don't see the need of a block on your account. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conf) You needed to leave a proper edit-summary. And please Guettarda, you know what happens on Wikipedia, there are a lot of trolls who use IP addresses just to disrupt. He thought he was blocking an abusive sockpuppet. You can't really blame Neil and say he was abusing sysop privileges. If you had left an appropriate edit-summary, Neil would not have blocked you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, you don't edit a page protected by an univolved admin to get your version in, even if you feel it constitutes a violation of an AC conduct ruling. Even in that case, you still discuss before reverting a protected page. And you certainly do not unprotect it. I thought that by protecting it, I'd stop the constant reverts, but I was wrong. I didn't realize it was going to prove so demanding and... unconventional, or I'd never had gotten involved. Kindly keep me out of this, as I simply do not have the energy for all this negativity. If anything, I am hopeful you can at least respect that request. Thx. El_C 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on your "un-involved"-ness on ANI. Kindly get yourself acquainted with the issues before ever contemplating administrative actions. And I am already tired of your red-herring arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I aim to take a break from this negativity; maybe you should, too. El_C 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not necessarily true, as the IP appeared to be someone using their IP to avoid scrutiny and thus was blocked as a sock" Oh, so you're accusing Jpgordon of sockpuppetry? (since he's the only person who had reverted the page more than once). The blocking policy does not permit blocks on people who choose to edit logged in, even if the purpose is to avoid scrutiny - it only permits blocks for abusive sockpuppetry. No, it was clearly WP:BITEing. And anyway, isn't this tolerance of harassment of African American editors getting kind of old yet? Why is it even ok to nominate her page for deletion without bothering to talk about it...just ? Why is it even ok to delete someone's userpage after an MfD was closed? This sort of behaviour isn't ok. Harassment of editors is unacceptable. Guettarda 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Oh, so you're accusing Jpgordon of sockpuppetry? (since he's the only person who had reverted the page more than once). Are you sure you want to use this argument? Or let me rephrase, are you sure you are putting forward what you actually want to say? The IP reverted without even commenting, ignoring all the discussion that ever took place on the admin noticeboard and acting in everyway that suggested use of an abusive sockpuppet, what do you expect an administrator to do? Removal of soapboxing does not constitute harrassment. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said someone evading scrutiny, do not put words in my mouth. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition, as well as Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content. Deeceevoice's ethnicity has nothing to do with the removal of unsuitable content for user pages, especially when the user has been anctioned for this in the past an the Arbcom have explicitly stated no more soapboxing on their user page. Your suggestion that this is "harassment of African American editors" is ridiculous. Neil ム 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Oh well, since you established the precedent, I'm sure you won't mind if I remove the offensive material for you. Guettarda 20:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticism has a place here

Why did you delete deeceevoice's user page? I don't think it's fair the way that people are ganging up on her. I think he essay made valid points about wikipdeia. Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I may have been wrong, I don't know the facts-- But, it really looks like people are trying to hide and delete criticism. That is not a good precedent to set.futurebird 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futurebird. See the two links I just provided to Guettarda, above. Neil ム 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them I don't think it explains your actions.That document is from 2006. ---And the content is not "offensive" it's criticism. futurebird 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no expiry date on that ruling. And the content is offensive. It's also soapboxing, inappropriate, incivil, and accusing other users of being racist. Neil ム 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing offensive about pointing out racism when you think it exists. Every user should have the right to do that. If you can't point out racism how will it ever be resolved? There's a danger that we'll become more concerned about the offense caused by pointing out racist actions than the actions themselves. Maybe a user-page isn't the best place for this, but the aggressive and persistent manner of censorship of criticism is deeply troubling to me. It only makes everything she had written there seem more valid. Stop and think about this: could it be that you reacted so negatively to a discussion of racism (which is an uncomfortable topic for everyone) on the wikipedia that you didn't bother to think of it might be true? Personally, I find the systemic bias offensive, here, which is real, and the only way it will improve is if people are able to talk about the issue. I've seen some improvements since I've joined, I'll say that too. Please consider what I'm saying and don't just try to react or "win the argument." I'm trying very hard not to turn this into an argument anyway. futurebird 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC) futurebird 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Between this and the whole BADSITES thing, there's a strong current of thin-skinned-ness about criticism... along with a large helping of irony when we deal with people who claim (rightly or wrongly) that points of view are being excluded from our discussions in violation of WP:NPOV by doing everything we can to suppress their expressions of viewpoint, thus making their criticisms self-fulfilling. Do we want to be like the government of Singapore, which once dealt with accusations that they suppressed criticism by suing their critics, by suing the journalist who claimed that? *Dan T.* 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, we'd have less chewing gum on the streets. Neil ム 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, I really think this conversation is important. I'd rather that you not make light of it and duck out. futurebird 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise - hyperbole always makes me facetious. Also, I didn't realise the conversation was still ongoing. I don't think anyone is denying systemic bias exists in Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not unique in this aspect; the entire internet is raddled with systemic bias, because most of the "first world" (for want of a better term) has access, and most of the "third world" does not. However, it is ignorant, self-pitying and cretinous to label systemic bias as racism. If you see an article that you consider biased, you can do two things. You can whine about it and make a lot of people feel a little worse to make yourself feel a little better, or you can take some responsibility and fix it. I would prefer people took the second approach. Neil ム 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... ignorant, self-pitying and cretinous to label systemic bias as racism.

I guess some people think of "racism" as only really BAD things. Like the KKK or something. But, the truth is racism has a lot of forms. And racism that comes in the form of systemic bias is probably one of the most wide-spread forms of racism alive today, it has a real impact. Of course, you're right that it's not like the wikipedia is exceptionally racist. Many organizations, etc. have the same problem. Wikipedia probably gets more criticism than other organizations for systematic bias because of the role wikipedia has come to play as an arbiter of "fact." (I use that word in the loosest sense, the point is people use it)

That all said, I thought that your response was a little condensing. I do lot lot more than just "whine" was it really necessary to say that? Please try to write to me with some respect for where I'm coming from-- even if you don't agree. OK? futurebird 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you were whining - but if that's the impression you got, I apologise - I didn't mean to come across as condescending. But racism and systemic bias are not the same thing - Wikipedia has many systemic biases, for example topics such as Pokemon or Star Trek are disproportionately represented, because a lot of people who are technically literate and of the mindset that would contribute to Wikipedia are also of the mindset that really love Pokemon or Star Trek. That is a systemic bias, but it isn't racially-motivated. There are many more. The lack of coverage of (say) African topics is a systemic bias, but it's not because of racism - it's because we have very few African contributors. People tend to write about what they know, and most Wikipedians are North American, European or Australian. I would love for us to have many more African contributors. Neil ム 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you about the meaning of the word racism. I consider systemic bias to be a form of racism. You don't. That might not be important as long as we can both recognize that systemic bias has an negative impact on people and decreases the quality of content.

Now what really WOULD be racism would be to know that systemic bias existed and then fail to consider it a problem. Because doing that would only perpetuates it. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. futurebird 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree it (systemic bias) exists, and that it's a problem. The solutions, however, are beyond the remit of Wikipedia, because the solution would require the whole world to change (of course, efforts are underway - see, for example, One laptop per child). But by making as much knowledge freely available as possible, we are doing our little bit to try and help. And no problem. Neil ム 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-conciliation

Hey. Nick seems to be under the impression that I hold a grudge against you, I just want to clarify that is not at all the case. I think a lot of the issues stem from a misunderstanding: I've been monitoring userpages lately (90 percent of my contributions during the last few days), and I noticed DCV having a lot of edits in User:RC. At a glance, it looked like a revert war, so I protected it on the last version. Since Jpgordon had, twice, reverted to that version, I did not think there was anything too urgently wrong with it. I think you acted in haste by twice reverting the protected page instead of first explaining to me what your take of the underlying issues were, and I think you lifting the protection was also a mistake. Again, because you were involved in reverting the page before it was protected, so for appearances, if for no other reason. This is my view of what happened. But the main reason I am writing to you is to clarify that, before as now, I hold no ill-will toward you. I would never discriminate against you in any situation just because I dislike you, but, at the event, I don't dislike you. Please reconsider signing the Chipoll! El_C 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we'll agree to disagree - at the point you'd protected it, there'd only been 4 edits. But I don't believe there was any ill-will or grudge or dislike or whatever behind this; after all, we are both incredibly lovable. But no Chipoll for me! Neil ム 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I still think it's a very bad idea to revert a page that's been protected after you already reverted it immediately before (and I count 7 reverts), and then unprotect it. As a matter of decorum, if anything. Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't stress that enough. El_C 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ronald A. Carson. Since you deleted and/or restored this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review if you have not already done so. -- Jreferee t/c 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Low

Just a quick note: I know this article is up for GA, so I will be cautious in my editing, but I do see a few minor improvements that can be made. Let me know if I make a change you disagree with, and I'll work quickly to resolve it. Maralia 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annoy??

Simple question - since you have re-added offensive pro-Nazi images to your user page, shouldn't you be blocked according to your own standards? And it isn't a mere "annoyance" when someone asks you to remove offensive content from your user page. Please remove the offensive content from your user page. It's unacceptable for you to post cutesy-Hitler images on your user page. Do you not realise that the pro-Hitler content on your user page is highly offensive? Guettarda 06:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How in the blue heck is that pro-Hitler? You are just trying to create drama now. I know the point you're trying to make, you know the point you're trying to make, your point has been made. Go and find something better to do. Neil ム 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that point I am trying to make - that you have truly offensive content on your user page. And when asked to remove it, all you have done is delete the comments, often with insulting edit summaries. It's especially offensive coming from someone who harasses other editors for what you consider offensive content. Deeceevoice's user page is only offensive to people with very thin skins. Material which portrays Hitler in a cutesy light - that is truly offensive and disgusting. And your determination to keep pro-Hitler stuff on your user page speaks volumes about you. I would have asked anyone to remove pro-Nazi material from their user page...because it's offensive. Guettarda 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cutesy, it's mocking. It's neither offensive nor pro-Nazi, and the implication is unwelcome. I like the picture because it is funny, and because you are being rude and solely doing this to make some kind of hamfisted point, it can stay. Neil ム 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I have to say I have had a look and a think and cannot see why that picture with that caption could give offence to anyone; at least no more than any portrayal of Hitler in any form at all. Anyway, as well as being a mass-murderer etc Hilter was a noted charmer. If we rid our culture of silly or normal images of Hitler we will just make it easier for the next charming Hitler-type to get away with genocide as well, since no one will believe it of such a nice man... not that you shouldn't always back down to avoid an argument, but boy I cannot see the problem. --BozMo talk 12:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a long time before people stop fainting before the Swastika or any image of Hitler. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hypocritical and bad form for an administrator to do. Especially because of the above Deeceevoice controversy. Please re-concider removing the image out of respect and to show mature reasoning. Thanks. Jeeny 20:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I find the image with caption very funny. But, I question the motives of the mixed messages it sends when you were arguing over offensive images and content on user pages. JMO. Jeeny 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kenosis 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I apologize for missing the explanation for the closure. I missed it because I'm not accustomed to looking above the link for the closer's explanation. If I had scrolled up above the IfD section, I would have seen it, of course, and would certainly not used a demonstrative characterization of the closing such as "playing God", for which I now must apologize for being hyperbolic.
Having seen it in response to Jreferree's statement, I responded. I thought you might want to see it, so I'm mentioning it right after having posted it at the DrV. Regards, Kenosis 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, I also wanted to mention that I now recognize it is standard formatting for the closing admin's comments to be placed above the place where the link to an already closed IfD is displayed on a web browser (i.e., needing to scroll upwards within the linked-to IfD to see the closing comment). This is why I failed to realize you'd actually provided a justifcation for the closure as you saw appropriate -- I just hadn't caught this formatting quirk before a couple days ago. Consequently, I originally thought you had closed this particular IfD as a delete without any comment and analysis. Had I realized this, I'd have addressed the issue of polcy vs. guideline at the outset of the DrV. ... Kenosis 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chrisjnelson

Neil, we got our wires crossed. While you were posting about why you weren't blocking Chris I was writing about why I already had. I left comments on the various pages. I don't feel strongly about this either way and was close to handling it with just a warning like yours a couple of times during my research of the subject. --CBD 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frightner

Greetings Neil, some time back you indef-blocked Frightner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with e-mail function disabled. Was there a special reason for that, like prior abuse of e-mailing for harassment? The guy apparently wants to talk to me, and I'm thinking I'd rather have him in my inbox rather than block-evading on my talk page every day, so I'm considering lifting that restriction. What d'you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Future, I never harassed people via e-mail, I may be persistent but I'm not a psycho. Frightner 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.246.37 (talk) [reply]

Kind request

Please don't continue with these rollbacks until the discussion has been settled. You realize this is a controversial action, so I'm asking that you limit participation to discussion for now. Thank you.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:04, 10/9/2007

Metempsychosis

Hi Neil. Would you mind taking a look at the changes I made to the Metempsychosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page? I was about to start dressing it up, but was immediately interrupted by another editor who does not understand our policy on verifiability. It needs to be drilled into this person's head, apparently, that verifiability concerns trump trivia guidelines, especially a guideline that is in such constant flux and contention. Thank you for your help and for letting me visit your talk page... OF DOOM. Burntsauce 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a way around 3RR. Hey now you've got 6RR. Maybe I'll go and find myself a revert buddy too! Just kidding.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:02, 10/10/2007
Oh good god. Burntsauce 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does sort of look like you're trying to avoid 3RR, BS. Even though I do agree most of the list was garbage. I have tagged it as requiring sources and to be integrated into the article, and removed the passing mentions in random console games. Neil ム 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Neil, I look forward to working with you in the future. Burntsauce 22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Ban was misinformed

You can read the response on my talk page. The effect of the ban was to prevent me from responding The issue Dynaflow raised was another user stalking and reverting my pages. I would appreciate your correcting your mistake. Thank you. Rktect 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The week block (not ban) was not misinformed - you are under an Arbitration Committee ruling to not edit any articles relating to weights or measures. Neil ム 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hello, I can understand harsh, but how do you characterize unfounded in light of my Talk:Homeopathy#Edit warring message? Mercury 12:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said you'd be blocking those who were "disruptive" - I'm not sure removing a POV tag inserted by an editor (Sm565) against consensus (with reams of conversation saying "no POV") could be realistically construed as "disruptive". I appreciate you were trying to be even handed and apply the same remedy to both editors, but that only works when both parties in the dispute are equally guilty. Neil ム 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To do otherwise, would make me involved in the dispute, no? Mercury 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure using your judgement to ensure the "punishment fits the crime", so to speak, would have made you involved. As Sm565 was causing the disruption by repeatedly inserting a POV tag against consensus, and Orangemarlin's offense was to remove it per consensus and urge the editor to use the talk page, was blocking them both, for the same amount of time, entirely fair? Neil ム 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, or at least I hope so. Its not my intent to punish anyone. I gave clear and stern warning, and damn it if OM did not revert twice. I hate blocking contributing editors, I do. I'll do anything but. In the case, because I stated on the talk page what I would do, I had to follow through. OM, could have requested my assistance, or AN/I if there were folks editing against consensus. Mercury 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your point, and have been tempted to do so myself for similar cases before - I'm not saying Orangemarlin was entirely blameless, as you had told them all "no disruption, stopitnow". But I probably would have gone with a firmly-worded warning on OM's talk page first, to make sure he knew this tag removal diud, in your eyes, constitute disruption. I didn't think it constituted disruption, and it's plain he didn't when he removed the tag, so making him aware might have helped. Neil ム 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, though I've crossed paths with you, I appreciate your sticking up for me. I'm still pretty pissed off about this situation, because of one reason--I absolutely deserved good faith as a productive member of this project. User:Sm565 is a single-topic editor, who's purpose seems to edit-war on the article and provide tendentious and rejected arguments on the talk page. Frankly, the Homeopathy talk page is so long, so filled with utter polemics and arguments, I don't read it any more. I didn't even see Mercury's comments there--a lot of good editors refuse to read long talk pages because they are filled with crap. Mercury owed me a warning, given the "public" warning to Homeopathy editors is lost in the morass of debate, and because I frankly deserved it as a responsible editor of this project. Not that I would have agreed, but I know a number of editors would have jumped in to revert Sm565's POV edits. And we wouldn't have had this discussion. Mercury needs to be reprimanded for this situation. I don't care about myself anymore, I care that Mercury spent no time determining Sm565's behavior first. This is very troublesome. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill advised?

I don't want to continue a silly fuss that seems to have arisen over what was genuinely an innocently meant comment, but to clarify- I did not mean to imply that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone else, and I have now clarified that if there was any confusion. What I did mean to say as a general point is that editors should generally not respond on user talk pages to comments that are intended for the host and not for them. To do so repeatedly implies (to me) a sense of cabalism and a "pack" mentality that I suspect nobody wants. It is unfortunate that some misinterpreted my comment, but if there was any confusion, it's easy to ask for clarification, before running off and spouting incivility and confused accusations. That's what AGF is supposed to mean. Some people are very quick to take offence, although in this particular instance only I can see why OM may have been somewhat touchy- he was treated unfairly. But to clarify, all my edits are always well-meant and in good faith, I'm always happy to clarify any unintentially ambiguous statements, I haven't apologised for anything, and I'm not going to. I hope that doesn't create any more fuss as the matter is now rightly closed for all parties, but it's important to be straight about things. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

Hey Neil, Could you user-fy the article List of Charmed Good Beings into my user space so I could take a look at it? That article has been around for a long time, and I'm pretty sure it's undergone many revisions in the past, so I'm not sure how it ended up being a copyvio... is it possible that the website copied from here, or that somebody overwrote the old existing (original) article with that copyvio version? Either way, I'd like to take a look at what's there, and see what can be recovered to recreate an original version of it. Thanks. --Maelwys 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Unfortunately since I noticed you pointed out a similar problem in the Evil Beings article I've been looking through there, and it doesn't look good. Although many of the descriptions were initially very different from the copyvio ones, it seems that the copyvio text was inserted a couple lines at a time by a user at 24.238.191.xxx back in May 2005. And the change is so drastic (from the existing text to the new copyvio text) that it's extremely unlikely that it'd been developed to that point here first, more likely he just found the other site and started copying text over small chunks at a time. I just wish somebody had noticed back then, since there are several years of development (to both articles) since then... argh... So the formatting is entirely original (since it's been changed several times since then), just most of the descriptions will have to go away and start from scratch. :-( --Maelwys 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TDC/Prize

Nice pun. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Americans DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of German Americans. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. This really is "dig up old history" week. Thanks. Neil ☎ 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AN

Perhaps you would like to comment. [6] Regards, Mercury 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on adoptions

You mention that you're not taking any more adoptees as you're at seven, but I'm only counting five in your list. Care to take another? I am trying to run my own wiki and thus am interested in matters of a technical nature: how to format properly, what a namespace is (in plain English), proper use of categories & templates, that sort of thing. You're nearly the only user on the adoption page what mentions anything technical in a positive light ... so ... care to have a go at it?

Thanks! --Anamacha 04:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of sympathy

Just thought I'd say that I sympathise with you. I keep running into commenters in XfD discussions who don't actually read a nom, or a closure, or the ongoing discussion they're "joining in on", or even the comment that they're responding to. Added to that are those who don't bother to read the pages they are linking to (whether they be policy pages, or previous discussions). Or those who accuse you of everything under the sun, or even those who just flat out misrepresent the truth.

So anyway, I just wanted to send a smile and a bit of sympathy your way, to remind you that you're not the only one, and it can be a continuing concern with discussions everywhere.

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 08:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me

Beck riffs are an awesome idea. Thanks for the nice message! It really does get frustrating sometimes - it took me about five attempts to compose those DRV responses, as the four previous efforts were all far too incivil when I re-read them :) Neil ☎ 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can thank Steve block for that. My only knowledge of Beck is by radio/CD osmosis : )
(Though amazingly I recognised your reference above.)
I've been a party to a couple recent DRVs myself (as nominator and as the one to delete). And if you're bored, please feel free to read through WP:UCFD and its october archives. You may see some recent examples. But Wikipedia moves ever onward : ) - jc37 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted?

Neil, I'm new to Wiki and am still trying to find my way around here. You deleted my page about a Star Trek fan film in development. Can you please tell me why? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stsfi (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. Neil ☎ 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for re-arranging some stuff on a page for me; working with this is a bit tougher than regular HTML. I really do appreciate your assistance and your patient comments with a new user! --Stsfi 11:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

I understand your comment regrding source and appreciate your help in navigating this system. You've been very kind in giving me direction with this endeavor. I'll make sure I ve got better citations next time around. Next question would be - if a personal interview is acceptable citation for academic publication, why would it not be so here? Another editor removed what you had relocated for me...I thought I had documented the interview appropriately according to APA style? Cheers...--Stsfi 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jreferee/Lists_of_Ethnic_Americans

If you want to get a good handle on the scope of the problem and what we need to do to fix it, check out User:Jreferee/Lists_of_Ethnic_Americans. -- Jreferee t/c 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil

Neil,

I fucked up. I'm sorry about that block. I've apologized to OM on his talk, and ended the AN thread (i think). Thanks for being patient with me. Mercury 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of snowclones AfD

Neil - I am interested in hearing more about your reasoning for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones (3 nomination) as delete. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that creating a list of snowclones is OR unless each entry has a source saying "X is a snowclone". My argument is that lists for which membership criteria is obvious do not need such sources - for example, list of banks does not need a source against every line that says "Export Development Bank Of Egypt is a bank" etc. because it is obvious that Export Development Bank Of Egypt is a bank. In the same way it is obvious when a phrase is a snowclone, so creating a list of snowclones is not inherently OR. Your thoughts ? Gandalf61 10:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I get your point - basically, there needs to be a reference describing each phrase as a snowclone. If there is no reference for such, then it is original research. List of banks doesn't need a source against every line because "Export Development Bank of Egypt" has bank in the title, is a real company with a website and physical presence confirming it is a bank, should have an article describing it as such, and so on. Unless there is a reference for (say) "X or bust!" to describe it specifically as a snowclone, to describe it as a snowclone (itself a neologism) is original research. Neil ☎ 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think, though, that it is obvious if a phrase is a snowclone ? List of redundant expressions, list of titles of works based on Shakespearean phrases and list of political catch phrases do not need sources against every line because the membership criteria is obvious in each case. We do not need a source to confirm that "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" or "Read my lips: no new taxes" are political catch phrases because everyone (well, everyone in the UK and the US respectively) knows that they are. Is it not the same with snowclones ? (Note that this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - I am only referencing these other lists as exmplars to clarify my argument). Gandalf61 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it obvious? You may find WP:SYNTH interesting reading. If none of the sources talk about these phrases actually being "snowclones", then constructing them as snowclones is inherently advancing a bunch of original research. Neil ☎ 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it obvious to you ? Perhaps you have you not come across the term "snowclone" before ? Part of the definition of a snowclone is that it is "instantly recognizable". And no, I don't see how WP:SYNTH can apply here because that talks to the synthesis of published material for the purposes of supporting an editor's opinion, whereas here we (a) have no published material (isn't that the crux of your argument ?); and (b) the fact that a phrase is a snowclone isn't a matter of opinion - it just is a snowclone because it is used as one. In the same way that 37 just is a prime number, so that statement does not need to be sourced, but neither is it OR. Gandalf61 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Yes, I've heard of a snowclone before, but only in the context of its Wikipedia page - it's one of those neologisms nobody except a few Wikipedians seem to really care about. The fact that a phrase is a snowclone is a matter of opinion, and it needs to be referenced as such. Neil ☎ 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you haven't read the New Scientist and Times articles about snowclones that are linked from the snowclone article ? Would you be happy with a list of phrases that are identified as snowclones in either of those two articles, or in a similar article about snowclones from a similarly reliable source ? Gandalf61 09:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them now! I think a short list of snowclones would probably be better on the Snowclones article - with the provision that they are each referenced. An entire "List of ... " is not necessary. There's a couple there now, but that could be expanded. Neil ☎ 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can work with that. I will look at expanding the list within the snowclone article - with appropriate references for each one, of course ! Could you perhaps userfy the deleted "List of" article into my user space so that I can see whether anything can be retrieved from it ? Thanks. Gandalf61 10:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-Star

Despite your breakdown at the end there, you displayed some very good admin-ing and good judgement. I am sorry that you feel I am connected this mess. Judge this account for what this account does not what some other account did a year ago who people think is somehow connected. I've broken no policies (actually adhered to them as best I could) and have helped expand the encyclopedia. But, for you, here you go. -OberRanks 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, and cannot fault the editing and contributions of your new account. I have tried not to form a conclusion based on your old account. Neil ☎ 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to stir this up again, but despite the fact that you are totally convinced I am someone else, did you and others ever discover if your former friend was telling the truth about being a naval officer? There is a reason I need to know this but cant go into it here. I appreciate your assistance. -OberRanks 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you insist you are not Husnock, I feel it would be unfair to release information regarding his real life identity without his permission. And I just realised I forgot to say "thanks" - that was very rude of me, so, thank you for the barn star. Neil ☎ 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Good day to you and all the best. -OberRanks 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I'm off to work in five minutes and wanted to thank you again for your help. Sadly, though, right after we were done talking things got very nasty with a scatching essay by User:Durin calling me a "liar" and a "threat to the project". User:Betacommand then arrived and began calling me a "dirty sockpuppet" and a "troll" then began reverting my edits to pages. I'm trying to get someone somewhere to admit that this was a violation of WP:NPA. However these people felt about this Husnock, taking it out on me not only isnt fair but downright wrong. I am going to brush it off and move on, but wanted to get your opinion. Just think, if the tables were reversed and I called someone in a debate a liar, dirty sockpuppet, and a troll and then blanked thier edits I'd be blocked in about 5 minutes. Do you see where this is coming from? Thanks again for your help with all of this. Good day. -OberRanks 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but...

Thanks for the gesture, it is appreciated. It doesn't, however, change what I think of the behaviour of some admins and others at ANI, which has contributed to my loss of faith in the whole admin system. Maybe I'm just very naїve in expecting higher standards from those who have been entrusted with the powers that admins have, or in expecting that a desire for high standards would be appreciated on an admins' noticeboard. DuncanHill 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there's not much more to say. I'll continue to form opinions of the admin system based on how I see it working, rather than the "good intentions" or otherwise of those operating it, and for now I'll not bother with ANI, it won't help me and I don't think it helps Wikipedia. The greatest weakness of Wikipedia, in my opinion, isn't anon editing (which is a mixed bag), or vandalism (which generally is dealt with), it's the gulf which appears to exist between ordinary editors and the policy & administrative procedures of the Wikipedia. Editors will only take the time and effort to involve themselves in this if they feel welcomed and valued, yet the actions of some admins seem to prevent the openness that this would require. So I shouldn't have used a template to warn an experienced editor about his personal attack - well I am fairly experienced, and have never heard that before. And how does an editor get to Fredrick day's level of experience while making personal attacks without admins noticing? Instead, they spring to his defence when someone makes an honest mistake. Hey ho, I really don't want to continue with this subject, I do appreciate your contributions, but I feel that for me to involve myself further in discussions about WP policy or admins would, at this moment in time, be likely to lead to me leaving the project in frustration. DuncanHill 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I really think that this and the following edits are brilliant. I hope someday to be able to wield my mop with such expertise and flair. -- But|seriously|folks  17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a concept blatantly stolen from Neil's userpage"

Damn....now I have to violate someone else's userpage copyright! grr... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate

The Turnip, of Love!

Thanks Neil, that ASCII is awesome! Thanks for your help and continuing support. Dfrg.msc 08:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriots

It refers to the New England Patriots, who are basically the Real Madrid of the NFL right now. There current team is probably the single greatest American football team ever assembled, and they are known for putting the team above the individual. Naturally, fans of the other 31 teams hate their freakin' guts. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way, I f'n hate them, too. Go Browns. But you gotta give the Devil his due. They are crazy good. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for being willing to step into the issues surrounding the Simon Wessely page at WP:AN/I. MastCell Talk 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Paul Neil

I've been doing a lot of editing there and haven't been stupid. Please unlock it. Thai police have just said they tracked him through traced phone calls, but I can't add it at the moment... 81.149.250.228 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely wasn't you, it was a user with an IP starting with 194. I have unprotected the page. Neil ☎ 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of various European Americans

In light of the DRV which led to the restoration of List of German Americans, would you be willing to restore these other lists which were also similarly deleted?

Also, the talk page for the List of famous German Americans redirect seems to have contained archived discussion related to List of German Americans, so could you restore that as well? Thanks. DHowell 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They weren't deleted due to the List of German Americans AFD (which, incidentally, was wrongly overturned). You will have to go via DRV for each one. Neil ☎ 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor

Hiya Neil! Can I bug you for a favor? About three weeks ago a pair of fair use images were tagged as being considered for deletion. I didn't make a move to save them becuase the sourcing requirements for these two images were to hard to come up with, and I was not entirely sure that they had been published off Wikipedia, so I decided the best thing to do would be to allow both to be deleted. The first one was, but for some reason the second one (Image:Tom II (Toonami).JPG) is still here, and its been almost three weeks since it was up for deleteion. I don't think anyone will object to deleting it at this point (its been tagged since september), so could you delete it for me? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neil. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Tom! Neil ☎ 10:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request

Template put up as asked. I went through old e-mails trying to find the other thing you asked for and dont have them anymore. The one reference I found was this [7] where it is admited to.

I plan to reactive the H account and put up some new information, including a link to the OR account. Then people cant say I'm being dishonest. Also will e-mail the foundation about that other page we discussed that is affecting my job. Last, but not least, I would like to send one final e-mail through the Wikipedia system to our favorite person. I will be professional, but basicily will say that investigating me in the real world is uncalled for and to never attempt to do it again. I will wait a day or two to let you give me your opinion about that before sending such an e-mail.

I also would like to bring up that I've gone through the whole User:Pahuskahey page and its history. Despite the very strong feelings by specific people about this, including this whole Purple Heart/Silver Star issue, I would like to firmly state that I have never used or been associated with that account and it really does appear as someone (perhaps a very disturbed someone) stumbled upon my situation and got himself badly involved. People will probably never believe that person isnt me, but if this were a court I could prove it since when that man was editing out of Dubai I was hundreds of miles away and could not have made those postings. A final point on that is that someone actually appears to have threatened him on his talk page, saying they "had a friend of a friend" in Dubai where he lived [8]. That might need to be looked into; no matter how much people hate me, threatening another user is uncalled for.

A final point, I would like to have the meatpuppet/sockpuppet notice on the CC user page taken down. As explained, that was a member of my military command's IT staff and he created that account on purpose to stir up the entire ArbCom case. Again,people probably won't believe it, but its the truth.

I'll awaiting your feedback on these points. I think my act of reactivating the H account and stating who I am will go a long way to clearing this up. These other matters we can work together on. Thanks again. -OberRanks 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore

Thanks for the note, I was a bit concerned about that too. Since my single edit had nothing to do with the edit war I was protecting the page from, and the two parties were not adequately discussing the issue, I thought it might be best to go ahead and protect it. But you're right about potential conflation, so I'll be more cautious in the future! Dreadstar † 16:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Low

How are you bearing up under the stress of your FA nomination for Edward Low?

They're a tough gig at FA review. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the only annoying things is when two people give you conflicting requests! Neil ☎ 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amorrow?

Can you tell me what it was that got User:Amorrow banned, and why practically all of this user's edits are supposed to be reverted? I've been involved twice this week in undoing what I thought were excessive reverts only to be told that its part of a project to remove edits by Amorrow or one of their sockpuppets. Both were pornography or anti-pornography related articles (Nikki Craft and Linda Lovelace).

In my time on Wikipedia, I've witnessed some frankly obnoxious and POV-pushing behavior, in most cases, it seems, around sexuality- or pornography-related related articles. And in most cases, the Wikipedia dispute-resolution process is so completely tortuous, that I was beginning to think problem that users could pretty much get away with anything and that the only check on them was to try and continuously revert them yourself. So what was it that Amorrow did that crossed the line? (This is not something that's clearly outlined in the link that you gave me.) Iamcuriousblue 01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lists of American ethnic groups

What?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi - There was no consensus. Really. --evrik (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was. WP:DRV is that way. Neil ☎ 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from pneumonia

Category recreated after consensus to delete, which means I have to manually remove it from about 15 articles. The word needs to get out that this category was deleted which many Wikipedians do not know. Yours, 216.194.2.130 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate/Archive_19&oldid=237792016"