User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Large margins of the Iranian peoples

The estimates vary. (By the way I have counted the different estimates and they were not as large as White Cat says, but OK) Not in all countries censuses are taken in which ethnicity is asked, so for an elaborate discussion on numbers you should go to the demographics of those countries mentioned. I myself have named a few sources for my edits the Soviet census of 1989 and ethnologue, all the other numbers are based on sources too. Margins are large because we are dealing with estimates in a large number of countries. I do not see the problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. But let's keep the discussion to one place (Talk:Iranian peoples) - you say the same thing there, so I have replied there. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg

Thank you for administratively closing the AfD on fiddy2. However, the subsequent editing has been the source of great frustration. As you know, User:fiddy2, who has since identified himself as Dane's brother Greg, posted a lot of this material in the Dane Rauschenberg and fiddy2 articles. When you closed the merger, you wisely stated, "Feel free to edit down as required." However, any attempt at ending this excessive self-promotion is immediately changed by IP address editors, or User:Alansohn. I think we need a neutral third party to take a stab at cutting down all of this non-notable (and by any objective measure mediocre) running autobiography. Please help. Xcstar (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't think there can be any quibbles that the guy is notable, even if he is a self-publicist, and even if he made a relatively lame amount of money for running 52 marathons, and even though a bunch of people have managed far more impressive feats around multiple marathons. There's been a veritable crapload of media coverage. I've given it a good editing, though. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, although Dane's advocates have done some back-sliding since. I guess my concern is that the article has held Wikipedia up for ridicule in some running circles. Do you think the wikitable is appropriate? (The data was entered by Gregg Rauschenberg.)identifying himself as user Fiddy2 Cal Ripken played in a streak of 2,632 baseball games, but we do not have a wikitable listing the circumstances of each of those games. I think that the table is over-the-top. Thanks again. Xcstar (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. You changes were a big improvement. As expected your change was reverted, and I reverted it back. Xcstar (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Parrot

I feel that you have closed the discussion on the name of Sun Parakeet or Sun Conure when discussion was still in progress. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion had been going on for almost a month, and only yourself and Casliber were in opposition to the move. If there were any other points you needed to raise, I would imagine you would have raised them at some point in the last 3 weeks. This is why Requested Moves gets backlogged, because the closing administrator simply cannot win, thus nobody wants to help out there. For the reader, the link is Talk:Sun Parakeet. Neıl ☎ 10:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Repost of Aggrotech

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Aggrotech, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Aggrotech was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Aggrotech, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are misusing your job as administrator. Delete this redirect or i'll report your arbitrary edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.19.101 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested that this page be redirected to List_of_post-industrial_music_genres_and_related_fusion_genres#Aggrotech. It provides enough information about the genre, making a dedicated article unnecessary. The current redirect, Industrial Music, does not provide any information on the subject. Sovex (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms‎

Just in case you don't stalk watchlist my talkpage, I feel there wasn't a strong consensus either way, though there were definitely some significant problems pointed out by those opining delete and enough irregularities that I nearly just relisted it for a fresh AFD. I'd be fine with a deletion review of my close. There was enough wackiness at that AFD that I perhaps should have just followed my first instinct and relisted it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That RfC thing again

Hello Neil. I just wanted to remark that I (along with many others) agree with your opinion, but I wonder if you meant to use 'harass' in the normal sense or in the WP:HARASS sense when you mentioned it in the text. I understand it seems like splitting hairs, but thought you may want to consider clarifying there if necessary. Thanks, Epthorn (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the normal sense of the word (repeated threatening behaviour toward an individual). Neıl ☎ 10:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification although I assume that hotlinking it means you also believe it is WP:HARASS. Epthorn (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are they not the same thing? Neıl ☎ 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

History of computer hardware in Soviet Bloc countries

Everything's been very busy... Looks like you did a pretty good job of fixing many of the errors on the page. I just went through and fixed a few more. There are still a few places where it is a little awkward though. Dustybunny (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS?

Hi Neil, I saw that you edited your previous comment in the Kmweber RFC and was hoping you could clarify something. You pipelinked "harass" to WP:HARASS#Threats, which I am confused about. The guideline reads: "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise hurt them. Legal threats are considered a special case, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." What, if any, physical-, legal- or work-related threats were made against Kmweber? This is a serious question, I'm not being facetious - just wanted to check and see. Thanks, bwowen talk•contribs 11:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt was being warned he could be blocked, banned from participating in RFA discussions, and subject to various other remedies if he did not change his behaviour. These were threats to disrupt his work on Wikipedia. They were particularly unfair as his RFA commenting had already been okayed by a previous RFC. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. bwowen talk•contribs 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My Hero

I just have to tell you that, for reasons I can't politically disclose on wiki, that you are my wiki-hero. Keep fighting the good fight! Takenages (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Although now I'm intrigued as to why as I've never been a hero before... you can always email me if you want to keep it on the downlow. :) Neıl ☎ 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Do you know when you might have an adoption slot open? I'm not in a big hurry or anything.Landcamera900 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on holiday soon - if I forget to drop you a line in the New Year, poke me on this page. Neıl ☎ 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins of religion

Neil, could you also protect Origins of religion as per this--I believe you only protected Origin in the singular. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Done! Neıl ☎ 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neil, I think that you have acted prematurely and you have not even gotten to hear my side of the story. I have a reasonable argument that has that other editors have expressed support for. See Anthropology talk page. I posted comments there so that I could get input from editors who are actually specialized or experts in Anthropology. I think that there was valid conversations on the talk page that have been deleted, that for the sake of conversation, I would like the discussions to be retrieved. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi went ahead and recreated the page. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made some comment here for which I would appreciate a response. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It is refreshing to know that at least one administrator understands that consensus is based on reasons, not votes. I am guessing that if someone else had come along to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydran Kingdom (2nd nomination), the result would be no consensus or keep—simply because there were 5 keep votes and 4 delete votes. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?

Neil,

I noticed you have stepped back from the Origin of religion situation and I don't blame you. I was wondering, however, if you could help me with something related to this mess. Muntuwandi didn't just recreate that page but proceeded to again wipe out information from another entry Prehistoric religion and then to change the name to Neolithic religion to reflect the new content which no longer contains any information about the Paleolithic since he removed all of that information. While I can restore the Paleolithic information I've been working on I can't seem to move the page back to its previous title. I get an error when I try. Do you know what I can do. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You have to have the admin buttons to move an article to a "non-red-link" location (such as where a redirect now sits). Neıl ☎ 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Prehistoric_religion#Consensus, I have posted some comments here if you have any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) Protection

There are two ways to do it. The lazy way involves placing JavaScript into MediaWiki:Sysop.js, which any admin can do, to automatically prefill the relevant textbox when the action=protect page loads; probably asking on MediaWiki talk:Common.js is the best way to find someone to write the script. Prefilling the box could also be done by the servers, but that would require a software change and a bugzilla report; that would be marginally more efficient and also work for admins who had JavaScript turned off. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi unblock request

Ryulong has blocked User:Muntuwandi indefinitely after seeing him on multiple AN/I threads, "never in a positive light". In his unblock request, he has requested that you and another admin look it over as you are, he says, more familiar with the case. Could you? Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look. Neıl ☎ 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

some comments have been posted at User_talk:Muntuwandi#Consensus_can_change. Systemicbias (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, Muntuwandi (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has been blocked again for edit warring over the same dispute. Systemicbias (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Romulan and Hydran SFB pages

Hello, I'd like to ask you to reconsider these decisions on Romulan_Star_Empire_(Star_Fleet_Universe) and [[Hyrdran Romulan_Star_Empire_(Star_Fleet_Universe)

1. 1 They went against consensus. While the delete requests are not a vote, the sense of those involved was that having a vote again after one month was bogus. I personally didn't choose to make any other arguments because I felt it was so clearly bogus that no more effort was needed.
2. 2 as posted on the discussion: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." One month, during the holidays, is not a lot of time.

If the policy of #2 is just ignored, you are encouraging people to bring these nominations up even more than they currently do. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. I just logged on very quickly to leave a note saying I am now away til early Jan. I appreciate your point but I closed it correctly in my view. I don't have perfect judgement - nobody does - so I'll point you towards Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Away

I'm on a wikibreak now. If anyone needs me for anything, you'll just have to wait - I won't be checking my email, either. Merry Christmas everybody, I'll be back in early January. Neıl ☎ 08:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in AFD

Good evening, Neil. One of the participants in an AFD you recently closed has since been confirmed as a sockpuppet of another participant in the discussion. Both accounts have now been indef-blocked. I don't know if you'd make the decision any differently but wanted to make sure you had all the available facts. Thanks.

By the way, thank you for your comment at Talk:Sapere aude. I did my best to respond there. Rossami (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 03:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Vyner Brooke

Re. your moving this page. I agree that most users seemed to be against Vyner of Sarawak, however I certainly thought there was a growing consensus towards incorporating his monarchical title, especially considering almost all other monarchs on Wiki. do not have their surnames mentioned. Further to this the article misleadingly is entitled Charles Vyner Brooke, even though he was not known by his first name Charles. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right; I don't know anything about the subject other than what I garnered from the discussion (with no preconceptions, I simply closed the discussion as fairly as I could). There can always be further discussion on the talk page on whether his monarchic title ought to be strung on the end of the article name. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on 20,000

Congratulations on your 20,000^th edit! We haven't interacted, but I've seen your good work and calm good judgement lots of places. Well done. --Reuben (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey Neil,

ok so here's the deal: I'm very new to this wikipedia world and have been trying for some time now to edit some MTV Canada Host Profiles which were up are running perfectly until I messed around with it and are noe being deleted. YIKES! I know you probably dont have time for this fairly large project however after reading almost everyone's wikipedia ad to adopt sad sorry lameO's like myself I'd thought I'd ask. Are you interested? Jamierush (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Jamie

Sorry Jamie, someone further up asked me first. I will see if they still need me. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi I guess your back, I am a little busy with finals right now, so I'd be fine with you lending them a hand. I'm too busy to even start right now as it is, We can start after you're done helping them.Landcamera900 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

email

Hi, saw you on the admin list and I needed help so I emailed you something. did you get my email? Tkguy (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Neıl ☎ 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi there Neil, you once said, if you need any help, well I need to call you up on it. I have fully protected the Montenegro article due to edit warring. It had been going on for almost 3 week. The talkpage shows that there seems to be consensus backing up one side of the edit war. The other side is using IPs to constantly revert. The IPs resolve from several different addresses, mainly from a telecoms company. Strangely though, the last one to edit resolves from the Council of Europe. I received a message asking me to effectively change the content. Frankly, I am not sure what to do. Would a semi-protect be effective, and fair? Comments? Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

“A note that original research is not permitted on wiktionary” ?

Hi Neil,

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spunga you wrote “A note that original research is not permitted on wiktionary” [1]. Can you substantiate this? (I have tried, and cannot).

My issue with the article was that it was essentially original research, in that it was entirely built upon primary sources and included original synthesis of information from those sources, in violation of WP:NOR.

It is my understanding that wiktionary has no such prohibition against exclusive use of primary sources or of original synthesis, and that a wiktionary entry for “Spunga” based on the material in the article would be likely to be judged to meet wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the link you gave, under the heading "Attestation". Neıl ☎ 08:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Qumar:deletion

This… I don’t know where to start!
In no particular order:-
.a)I found this had been deleted when it turned up on my watchlist,, though I never saw the discussion there; presumably because it was on another page, and this deletion looks like an afterthought.
.b) “decision was to merge with The West Wing # Foreign …"
Well, actually it wasn’t.
3 voted for merging Equatorial Kundu and Qumar in a new page Fictional Countries in the West Wing;
2 voted for merge and re-direct to WW#F (3 if you count yourself)
2 others had no preference.
In the event you didn’t even do that; a search for Qumar leads to the top of the WW page, making it necessary to scroll through to find it.
.c) I find it hard to believe this would be agreeable to anyone who is interested in, or has contributed to, the WW pages; does that describe anyone who spoke on this decision?
.d)The reason for the proposal isn’t that clear; “not notable”? So where does that leave all the other pages about fictional characters, places, histories?
.e)“can be re-created if sources are found to establish out-of-universe notability”; what does that mean? If it’s referred to in a book, like a commentary on the West Wing (though you don’t know, and haven’t checked, if there is one)? (for the record, there are at least 5 in the British Library Catalogue, and at least one in our town library; shall I check? Would it make any difference?
.f)“theres nothing on the page that isn’t said elsewhere"; Well, there was quite a big page before (from memory), now there’s just a paragraph, so something has gone. And if information is in several places, what does it matter? It makes sense to repeat things/items/details from various places onto a single page to make the information more accessible; even real encyclopaedias can do that, the more so a virtual one.
.g) ) The page wasn’t (again, from memory) badly written, or un-encyclopaedic, especially compared to some of the pages I’ve seen; is WP so big that we can afford to be tearing decent pages out? (it’s still not as big or as comprehensive as a decent-sized city library).
.h)So if I want to dispute this, how do I go about it? Swanny18 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neıl ☎ 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This says I should first approach you and ask you to re-consider your action. I thought maybe I had already done that, but obviously not; so can you please re-consider your action, for the reasons given above. Swanny18 (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

a) I merely closed the deletion discussion. Failure to inform you is the fault of the nominator, not mine.

b) Yes it was - as closing administrator I have to close deletion discussions based on my judgement of the consensus.

c) I can't force people to participate in deletion discussions.

d) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

e) If you can find one, great - that would lend considerable ammunition to the deletion review.

f) There is useful information and unencyclopaedic trivia. All good information was merged.

g) That is a very philosophical question on Wikipedia. You may find m:Deletionism and m:Inclusionism interesting reading.

h) I think I took the right action, but you are free to request review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I do note discussion at Talk:The_West_Wing#Qumar.2C_Equatorial_Kundu seems to be in favour of the merge. As the disclaimer at the top of my talk page says, that's where I'll direct you. Neıl ☎ 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying; the links you gave were useful. I hadn’t seen the discussion at the West Wing talk page; it seems some of my concerns have been overtaken by events, so I don’t know if asking for a review is appropriate now. I’ll take things up over there. I apologize if I’ve seemed a bit short with you over this; I was just taken aback by the way things happened. Good luck Swanny18 (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Neil, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hoffman

I've replied to your explanation of your deletion of Hoffman (Saw) on my talk page. The Transhumanist 12:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And again. The Transhumanist 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I can't recall the name of the person who added the new section of the article. Would you look it up for me please? (I can't remember the name of the section either, but I think it was at the end of the article, and pertained to deleted scenes are something. I'd like to inform the editor that he can request that the article be copied to his user space so he can continue adding referenced material, in case he didn't know. Thank you. (If there were more than one editor who worked on that section, I'd like to know each of there names. Thanks.) The Transhumanist —Preceding comment was added at 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For the reader - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoffman (Saw). The user who added was Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs), who knows how userfying works. He can request it via Wikipedia:Deletion review. I note these five "references" were Photobucket, blog, blog, AOL's version of youtube, blog. Neıl ☎ 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of LGBT couples. 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. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How to place box around AFD's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_11#Tourparty

It's the second from the bottom. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Userfication of a deleted page

It wasn't in Wikipedia:Userfication.

Where is this procedure explained?

The Transhumanist 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That would be the logical place, and if it's not explained there, it should be.

Administrators can temporarily undelete a deleted page, move it into a user's userspace and delete the redirects; this results in a page in userspace with all the history intact and a red link in main space. This can be requested from any administrator or via Deletion Review. Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request, depending on the administrator's judgement.

There you go, put that in there. Neıl ☎ 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Bore da!

As the Montenegro page is protected, I'd ask you to do some changes.

-update dates of reliious holidays for year 2008-only good Friday 25th APR; Easter HOLIDAYS 27th april-28th APR, and remove Easter MoNday

- Delete sentence "Though Cyrillic script is equal to Latin, the growing moves of support of a unique Montenegrin identity and sovereignty are favoring the Latin script."

That's not true. Because both scripts are equal by the constitution! Stefke (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Will you please adopt me? I asked nicely, for the record. KC109 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You did, and even said please. Um, um, I think I might be stopping adopting, I'm not really feeling up to it at the moment. There are lots of great people who would be willing to, though. Neıl ☎ 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. KC109 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

William Pye deletion

question on deleltion from newbie on William Pye M.B.E I am lost as to why the original was deleted. Also talk about fast deletion. By the time I had read the fast deletetion article and tried to understand what to do as a newbie it had gone. This is a first experience of using this service . I have found it to be not a very warm welcome.

I was only trying to add an article on William Pye who received an MBE for his and his staff at Pye Motors contribution to the manufacture of aircraft parts and engines used in landing craft used in the II world war on the D-Day landing. This was after talking to his son Jim Pye the current chairman of Pye Motors.I was shown a promotion video on the company web site made back in 1994 and was suprised that the company who are now a Ford dealer had such a contribution.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Pye_M.B.E" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary50Williams (talk • contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gary. See WP:Why was my page deleted?. Neıl ☎ 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT AfD

I just wanted to say thanks for presenting a much more cohesive arguement for the AfD then I could have... unfortunately it seems it is very hard to delete even bad material as long as its associated with LGBT issues. :/ David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I should point out that's not why I'm arguing for deletion (I've got a few LGBT-related articles under my belt, I don't think I'm anti-gay or anything like that). But thanks. Neıl ☎ 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflic)Statements like that is why LGBT Wikipedians get so pissed off with the whole process. Your assertion that bad material is hard to delete if it's associated with LGBT issues is false. Believe it or not, we even CSD/Prod/AfD LGBT content that is bad. So don't knock LGBT editors or lump the whole of LGBT issues under one umbrella. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're anti-gay, Neil, I'm saying that you're principled and much more eloquent than me. As to Allstar, my assertion is based on my personal experiences. I have had LGBT editors claim that an article should be kept because it can "console gays around the world". I'm hardly saying the lot of you are editors who will singlemindedely say if its gay its notable, but it's entirely true that it's hard to delete LGBT topics, and there are plenty of editors who are myopic enough to agree to that sentiment (like the ones asserting that interracial marriage has never been controversial.) I'm hardly singling anyone out, it's in the same vein as how WP:GUNDAM can make it hard to improve those types of articles. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There can be a "them and us" mentality, but that is not exclusive to WikiProject LGBT - it's prevalent among many of the larger WikiProjects. Neıl ☎ 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring/3RR

Neil, you previously warned Reginmund (talk · contribs) about his edit warring so I am bringing this to you. He has continued to do so at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) after being warned. He seems to be stalking this article as the last 3 times its come off protection, he was right there to delete the same specific content he is having an issue with - even though there is and has been a long ongoing consensus discussion on the talk page. He's removed/reverted the content 5 times within the last 24 hours. I don't know what else to do with it. He won't participate in the consensus discussion on the talk page other than to basically say the article will be his way and that's that. Then he continues to remove the content. It's obvious from everyone reverting him, that either the consensus is to keep the content or at least that he shouldn't be removing it until the discussion has reached a consensus. My problem is if I revert him again, I'm doing it because of policy - that being to get a consensus - but I'll be just as guilty of 3RR/edit warring. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months - he really has exhausted patience at this point. Neıl ☎ 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and handling it. Patience has definitely been exhausted. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint on ColdFusion650

For the record, they were copied. The original posts are still intact. It's still on my talk page. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, then there really was no problem. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jericho

Hello... thanks for your note. The torrent news site isn't reliable as a source, as evidenced by the way the text of their article is written. The other two site you've listed merely repeat the same text, without any additional verification. I've tried (unsuccessfully) to locate a reliable source for the leaks. The reference to the CBS site is now dead; I guess they've deleted it. I'll keep looking, however. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Found one - http://www.buddytv.com/articles/jericho/jericho_first_three_season_two-15852.aspx - as Google News use this one ([2]), I think we can consider it reliable. Neıl ☎ 09:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a viable source for the leak. However, I have had to tag the episode summaries and remove the Morse code, simply because we don not have a valid, verifiable source for that information. (Yes, I know the actual episodes can serve as a primary source for plot details, but only after they are broadcast or otherwise officially released.) We cannot use Bittorent-sourced illegal copies as a primary source, instead, we would need to find a reliable third-party source to provide the information. This has nothing to do with the moral issues regarding downloads, only their lack of qualification as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. Neıl ☎ 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lon Horiuchi

I'm quite disappointed in your close of that AFD. It seems clear to me that this person is only known at all because of his employment by the government, and that there is no continuing interest in him apart from the government incidents in which he was involved. Could you explain how you interpret Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event in this case? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis for the deletion nomination was "the article fails WP:BLP1E". If that criterion applied, the article would have been deleted, and if it didn't then it would not be - that was the judgement to be made for the AFD closer. Based on the arguments supplied by the participants and my own reading of the article, it seemed that the WP:BLP1E bar was passed, as in addition to the incident itself there were a number of major court rulings, and significant ongoing press coverage. If we consider all ensuing coverage on a person because of one sole act to not be acceptable under Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, then there are thousands of articles that should be deleted (John Wilkes Booth, Mark David Chapman, et al) That's clearly not the intent of the criterion. You do, as you know, have the prerogative to appeal the close or seek further discussion at Deletion Review. I hope I answered your question. Neıl ☎ 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are thousands of articles about living people that should not be hosted on Wikipedia. I posted here because I brought up the "one event" part of BLP in my comments, but your closing comment didn't address them, or the fact that BLP specifically says we should not have certain sorts of articles, so the BLP issue can't be "edited out". I'm sure you considered all the deletion arguments, and the holistic decision of whether we should have an article on this person, rather than just deciding whether BLP1E applied; but your closing comment didn't express that to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did - WP:BLP1E, which I cited in the closing statement, is a shortcut to Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. I've tried to clarfiy it for you, but if it's still not clear then I'm not expressing myself very well. The sole reason MastCell gave in his deletion nomination was that (paraphrasing) "Horiuchi is only notable for one event". Ample evidence was supplied in both the deletion discussion and within the body of the article itself to suggest that he was notable for more than that, as he was involved in multiple high profile court rulings and the subject of multiple articles in multiple major newspapers and magazines. There were concerns voiced that the article was a target for edits that violated BLP - hence my comment about editing (a subjetc attracting possible BLP-related vandalism or controversial edits in itself is not a reason for deletion). Neıl ☎ 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page notes. I'll watch this page for a little while.

I'm not looking for a DRV; I just wanted to give (maybe) a clearer picture of the motivations for deleting articles such as this. I do agree that this one can be pruned down to make it more neutral, but I think that is a disservice to Horiuchi. As far as I can tell, the court testimony etc. is all a direct consequence of Horiuchi's involvement at the incidents, not a separate cause for notability. I was confused about where BLP1E pointed, and thought it went somewhere else, sorry for that. I don't see any evidence that this person is a public figure or the subject of continuing widespread public interest. Our default position on such articles is not to host them.

Here's a parallel question: people have been killed by faulty concrete in the Big Dig ceiling collapse. Should we have an article about the contractor responsible, since he or she was involved not only in installing the concrete, but in court cases after its failure? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the event, I had to read the article. I think you're referring to Matthew J. Amorello, right? We do have an article on him. Neıl ☎ 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the actual contractor who installed the concrete, not the government official higher on the chain of command. The actual contractor is likely mentioned in the lawsuits - does that mean we should have an article on him or her? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Has there been a ton of articles in the New York Times about him a la Lon Horiuchi? If so, yes, we should. Neıl ☎ 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there have been a ton of articles about Horiuchi, and what articles there were seem to be related to a single incident, the Ruby Ridge shooting, hence the argument about BLP1E. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles (there's 3 major ones presently cited in the article alone, and I found more fairly handily [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] etc) seem to not just be about the shooting, but also the subsequent court issues. Yes, it all stems from the one incident, but going back to the above examples I gave, so does the notablity of John Wilkes Booth or Mark David Chapman. Neıl ☎ 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment box thingy fix

Dude =). -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wire

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I've left a couple of comments on the ANI and at Talk:The Wire (TV series). In short thanks for the clarification and I'm happy to follow the policy as explained but please note that I was acting in good faith and sought discussion prior to any reverts.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy

Hi, query for you here about your block. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we deal with this?[12] Anthon01 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem there is no way to deal with Guy when he breaks the rules. Neıl ☎ 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm glad there is one admin prepared to call Guy for his incivility - maybe the timing could have been better, but anyone other than Guy would never have got away with such persistent incivility and refusal to discuss. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. As it is, the unblock was carried out. Neıl ☎ 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who unblocked him? Anthon01 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're spamming the same note you did here on the comment thread - it says who unblocked Guy, read it for yourself. Neıl ☎ 14:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was confused as you were when I placed the "unblock question" on your talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brethren Court

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

[13]--Filll (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Talk:Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Neıl ☎ 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)