User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 27

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Since no one told me about the discussion, or gave me a chance to give input, I feel your unblocking was premature and wrong. You need to at least wait until I had a chance to give input. Guiom did not tell me about the AN discussion, nor has anyone even tried to address my concerns. I'm not about wheel warring, but this is ridiculous. pschemp | talk 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For the reader:

龱

12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I've already asked him by email to try and find another username; I've also given him some advice regarding the POTD thing and asked him what the status of the discussions was regarding the removal of the watermarks. This is the second time I am involved in a wikidrama (the first time was about an emergency desysopping), I really should stay away from the AN :) Thanks again for your help. guillom 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Neil, thanks for deleting the potential great powers section at the

) 11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed that will resolve things. If there's any further problems let me know.

龱

14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

it seems that "my" rfc is death so i want to know if i have recovered all my rights to edit whatever i want, like users Naval and Maurice do, or i still have your hidden block and your threatens to block me if i edit again. I want to hear from you to report it if i still have it, i think that or i am blocked or i have recovered all my rights but your hidden block it doesn't seem me legal and i will report it. thanks. --Sclua (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened to block you if you edited again. I threatened to block you if you

龱

13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, we can't be running around after a user who keeps uploading watermarked images, and remove the watermarks. Users outnumber admins by a long shot, so who is going to be following around all the watermark uploaders if we create a precedent that uploading watermarked images is entirely acceptable? It's clearly not acceptable - for instance, watermarked images are completely forbidden at

) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are not acceptable at FPC. And of course they are not acceptable on any article. Uploading them under a license that allows us to remove them isn't that bad - as the watermarks are all in the same place on each image, I would imagine a bot could remove them.

龱

14:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to write this bot? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. "

龱

14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the user we're talking about is going to re-upload all images without any watermarks. No bot will be needed. guillom 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the user agreed to do this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Read

龱

14:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you keep confusing this user with User:Shot info and it's confoosling me in the process! It's Commons:User talk:Spot Image. Sarah 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh! I had no idea. Curse you Shot info! Effing flabberjackers. Fixed (and now I'll go fix all the other places I got it wrong).

龱

14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you created this article, and that it's tagged for proposed deletion. Just thought you should know, in case you want to defend. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I took the five seconds the nominator should have taken and added five references to the article.

龱

15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you take a second look at this close, please? I think that there was a misunderstanding - the science park is an integral part of the school and not a separate entity. Consequently, an article on just part of a school is not practical. Whether the coverage of the science park part is sufficient to give the school notability is what the debate was about and the views were evenly balanced. IMHO this should have been closed as 'no consensus'.

) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the article (look at the picture) - it's a community science park. If you can find something else that says it's definitely part of the school I will certainly reconsider.

龱

16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil. Is this talk page still being used? Regards, Rudget (logs) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking references there as I find them prior to creating the article. People keep tagging it for deletion, but G5 only applies for orphaned talk pages that aren't helping build the encyclopedia. Assembling references clearly does.

龱

19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw it and thought it whether it may comply with G8 or not. I wasn't sure as the history was quite brief (and included a reversion) so I thought best to ask you before any action. Thank you for the response. Regards, Rudget (logs) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A little more explanation might be appreciated as part of any editorial decisions. "The result was delete." is needlessly brusque. If you can not find time to write opinions to support your decisions, you should not be passing them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"The result was" is put there automatically. If you believe the AFD closing message to be too blunt, then you need to discuss that at

龱

18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, greetings. You recently deleted an article that I have tried to rewrite and I wanted to check with you if I should re-submit. I have revision as my user page.

) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

☄

19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks neil...also working on some other edits in arts/music/humanities. Apprecitate your response.Psychobotox (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since deleted under G4; now at
  GRBerry
  13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not Neil - enforcing an arbcom is in no way haarrasment - don't listen to beta - he chucks a tantrum if he doesn't get his way. Viridae^Talk 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to lump myself in the "pro-Betacommand" crowd, but three blocks by the same admin in a row simply doesn't look good. If you're going to insist on having him block, perhaps next time you could ask someone else to do it? We've got no admin shortage at the moment, and no matter how much we try to deny it, appearances over things like this do matter. If you had different admins for each block, there's no way anyone could claim it was just one admin harassing him anyway, right? Kylu (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Two blocks (note the "third" block was merely reducing the length of the second). But I have decided not to involve myself in Betacommand's conduct again - if he feels I am harassing him, it doesn't matter whether I am or not, it's better I steer clear.

☄

18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you're correct regarding the number of blocks of course. Kylu (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The nominator has just been determined by a checkuser to be a likely ban evading sock account. Could you please relist or close as no consensus? In neither of the above was there a "clear consensus". And we absolutely should not humor ban evading, single purpose socks. Therefore, I strongly urge you to either close as no consensus and let an untainted discussion occur or at least relist striking the sock account's comments or linking to the checkuser. Whether you feel the articles should be deleted or I think they should be kept, we absolutely cannot be okay with questionable nominations made by block evading accounts that should not have been making the nomination in the first place. Besides, don't we usually speedy close such discussions if it's apparent that it was made by a sock account? --Happy editing! Sincerely,

18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread about this on ANI

Wikipedia:ANI#Likely_sock_of_User:Fredrick_day . I don't agree.:) Sticky Parkin

00:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ur boxen

<div style="border:solid '''green''' 1px; margin: 3px 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="background:black;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: 12pt;" | <big>[[User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy|<span style="color:red">'''BAD'''</span>]]</big> | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: white;" | This user is a member of '''[[Wikipedia Review|<span style="color:white">Wikipedia Review</span>]]'''.</span> |}</div>

green should be switched red to produce the matching border for your box.

miranda

04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

{{wikibreak}}

I am off to the

18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back now. Look!

☄

08:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! And, you changed your box.

miranda

07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's officially reddinated.

☄

10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have previously participated in discussions on use of English in currency names at

01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Eleventh edition (1910)

Hi, I know it's in the public domain, but do you know about a valid version of it that is available online? I found versions that are described as unreliable in the respective Wikipedia article. Squash Racket (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the most recent version; it is restricted though (I get it through work). Let me know what you need to know.

☄

08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, welcome back! Great picture. Squash Racket (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You were the last vote in my RfA, so I didn't have time to properly prep your thankspam! I usually take great care with my spam. Normally I would have seen the notice and adjusted accordingly. Hope you're feeling whimsical. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I always am!

16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil - thanks for responding to my request at

) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha -

☄

14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Neil - I'm back! Thanks for watching the kids while I was away. Did they give you any trouble?

talk

) 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my intention to troll or disrupt at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I could unprotect it myself, but the last time I tried that a bunch of people ended up mad at me (it actually ended up on AN/I if you can believe that). People complained that I wasn't notifying admins, so this time I did. -Royalguard11(T) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your message on my talk page and for starting the section on the

) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dickenson & Hang gliding

Tighten your seat belt if user 'TheTruthWillDoFine' returns with multiple anonymous accounts as he did with the

talk

) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As you deleted this article back in April (I believe) I wanted to ask if you would mind placing it here for me to work on a bit. I've found a couple of reliable sources that, combined with his White House profile may be enough notability to at least maintain a stubby article on him. Could you place that in the empty userpage above for me to work on? Regards, ^S._D.Jameson 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Good luck!

☄

10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: [1], I think the rule you need is \bbbuk9.com rather than \bbuk9.com. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, bugger. Fixed! Many thanks.

☄

19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Was wondering why it was moved to the bottom of "Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard". Please delete this after answering on my talk page. And, realize I'm not a wikipro... at all. Thanks. PlanetCeres (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work on this article, unfortunately one user seems to be rather posessive about it and reverts the majority of the changes anyone makes. I have tried discussing it with him but he simply doesn't listen. Would appreciate your input on this as an admin! Thaf (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord. I have left a lengthy note for him on

☄

09:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a method of getting to 28 arbs on two year terms with no arb serving two consecutive terms at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Terms_and_seats. Since this was initially your proposal, I'd appreciate your input. Hiding T 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Putting my nose where it doesn't belong, probably, but this guy was warned before about disruption and seems to be doing it again. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this deserves a separate page, so I removed your redirect. -

) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your stellar work on MyWikiBiz, Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica et al. It's fantastic to see cabalists administrators take brave and proactive measures towards making Wikipedia more of an encyclopaedia and less of a defensive, insular power-thirsty cult. Sincerely, Skomorokh 13:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks - I enjoy tweaking noses :) Plus (and seriously) these topics are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, no matter what some may think of them - personal distaste isn't a reason to avoid providing full coverage of notable topics.

☄

13:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think the tide is turning against the

Anonymous (group) and Criticism of Wikipedia

etc.

A related problem which is not seeing as much traction is the blocking of fantastic content contributors because they have violated some minor precept. I saw a teenage, non-English speaking editor who had contributed to something like six featured lists indef blocked last week, whilst they had several candidates up at

WP:FLC, for reverting the removal of sourced content from an infobox. "Is this action in the benefit of the encyclopaedia" seems to run secondary to "do I have a defensible excuse to block?" Skomorokh

13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Context, please - who is the editor?

☄

13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun. It's not as egregious as it sounds, as he has been sockblocked a few times before and is sometimes difficult to deal with, but still pretty galling to me. Skomorokh 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That user has never been indefinitely blocked, according to the

☄

14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. The point is that he was editing in good faith (the intermediary edits were developing the Brian Adams article), in his mind defending policy, made a minor infraction amidst misunderstanding and was blocked. If someone had patiently explained the (highly contentious) infobox convention and the letter of the law on 3RR, this could all have been avoided. Instead, bitey templates, unsympathetic blocks/block reviews and a worthy contributor prevented from continuing to build the most valued parts of the encyclopaedia. A side point anyway, as all I really wanted to say was thanks and keep up the great work. Regards, Skomorokh 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just correcting your assertion he was indefinitely blocked. His block has expired by now, anyway, so there's not much I can do.

☄

14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about

19:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today and see where that came from.

☄

08:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia

Erm, Neil, this template is protected because people were edit warring over which places to include, mind reverting yourself and going to the talk page? MBisanz ^talk 08:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't actually care what we put on that template (maybe a

mug of ME), but since 2 established users were edit warring over it, and were willing to sit out any timed protection, I figured it was the only way to force them to discuss stuff (which sadly they don't appear interested in doing). Seeing as I voted in the MWB DRV, probably I'm not uninvolved in that respect, but otherwise it looks "Ok" (it is an article) for another admin to move over later today. MBisanz ^talk

08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think KnightLago and you have reached a consensus at Template:Wikipedia, can I add in the proposed changes? MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Gosh, consensus on a Wikipedia-related issue! :)

☄

08:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

N;
Here's a quick random poke: running again? I'm stumping for a wide field of reasonable candidates who've demonstrated common sense and patience, and you as well.
brenneman 01:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

lol me too. Neil for Arbcom! Sticky Parkin 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a firm "Maybe". I haven't decided; it's a while away yet, and I'm going to wait and see who else is running. If there's enough top drawer candidates, there's no point in my running (as I am decidedly middle drawer).

☄

08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think you're middle drawer? I think you'd be great, you're mature and yet approachable, having good judgment whilst seeming like a human being. We lack that on the current Arbcom, most of them are somewhat remote and frosty to the rest of us sometimes. Sticky Parkin 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment on WR: Most of the people trying to get WMUK 1.0 to be more open and to accept membership applications etc. are involved in WMUK 2.0. As are all the people involved in the 2010 Oxford bid. (Me = Cfp = Tom Holden, Tango = Thomas Dalton, (Joe) Seddon, Majorly, Skenmy, Smoddy, Geni etc etc. It's not "just an IRC thing", we've just been using that as a convenient communication channel. Anyway we'd certainly like all the help we can get, so please consider getting involved. As for the "there's no purpose" criticism that was raised, we are starting to discuss things WMUK could do and it will certainly be an issue in the first board election in a fortnight. --cfp (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, I've sent you an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Answer: not sure yet.

☄

11:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Neil! I am requesting the protection on Template:Collapsible option be reduced to semi-protection. My logic is: The vandalism was 2+ months ago, this template is not used on articles (it is noincluded onto other templates as documentation) and "After all, this is a wiki". Also, while you are at it, {{Collapsible sections option}} is a similar template and could also be semi'd. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The template is transcluded onto numerous templates, and is exactly the sort of template used for vandalism. Why do you want it only semi-protected?

☄

11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Capitol_Medical_Center_Colleges_was_put_up_for_deletion_here.... Make of it what you will. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Baxter. 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. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your help sorting out issues with the Shanaze Reade article last time. Unfortunatley I'm having the same issues with Cheri Elliott and Jill Kintner. Same user... I've left an explanation of my edits (most seem to have been reverted) on the talk pages hoping to get a sensible response.Thaf (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note. Hopefully it'll have the same effect as last time!

☄

10:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been on wikipedia for around a month (mostly reverting vandalism and welcoming new users), and I've been finding reversion of vandalism particularly frustrating, because I'm required to make 2 or 3 edits (even with Twinkle) to undo vandalism and notify the user (which is a pain and a half). I was wondering if you could grant me the ability? I would be happy to answer any questions you have, of course. (I picked you randomly from the category of admins who are happy to consider such requests) Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 07:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done!

☄

08:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll be sure to use it wisely. Practical Joke on my user page: removed! --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of ...

☄

11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

From an uninvolved editor, from viewing the blocked user's talk page, I would recommend that you review your policy of ask and ye shall receive, and at least do a backround check.—

Improve

11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed his talk page and checked he'd never been blocked before; usually that's enough. I think this was just bad luck. How many editors create sockpuppets so they can revert their own vandalism?

☄

11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that is usually the case with sockpuppets, but back to the talk page, I was refering to the numerous warnings the user had, instead of just the blocks.—

Improve

05:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that if you took the time to read through the whole debate. The issue was not whether Indian occupied Kashmir is a legally correct position. It may very well be wrong. The purpose of the article is to detail the Indian viewpoints (even if it is believed to be wrong by others). I thought we all know that WP do know hold articles only on facts.

Redirection is not the same as a separate article. Would it be appropriate to redirect flat earth article to Spherical earth????

Your decision to redirect was taken despite clear non-consensus (thus default result keep) pointed out and suggested by an uninvolved non-admin closure editor.

12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, please see my answer to you on my talk. Speaking of broken things {{talkback}} appears semi functional at the moment. TravellingCari 12:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matt Lee (musician). 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. -Nard 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I well understand the fundamental motivation, the article does assert importance. Nominate it for AfD if you like, but it passes speedy A7. DGG (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if you consider "worked for the civil service" to be an assertion of notability. The article failed A7. That was the "fundamental motivation".

☄

21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've dropped a

on ANI to ask that the pages deleted for the above users are undeleted for the time being, at least. Because this might be a matter where others have a view, I have posted the request at ANI rather than here - hopefully that's okay.

It would be very helpful for the moment if you'd be okay with undeletion for the while, while the case evidence is still being reviewed and diffs looked up by others.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't - and still don't - see there being any benefit in retaining these pages at this point, but as you will.

☄

07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! :) Last year,

) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - and thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Neil, this is just an update on User:Pigsonthewing. You were probably not familiar with his long, extremely checkered past with that section. He has continually edit warred that section, calling another user a stalker, on his page, and has been blocked multiple times for it in the past, going back to June 2007. Since he is just coming back from a year long ArbCom ban Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. and immediately went back to readding that section, despite the ArbCom comment that 1) Evidence has shown that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation. Passed 7-0 at 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (with that section of userpage being part of the evidence against him.. there is NO reason that section should be added. I have informed him if he does so again, he will be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the User page history, there was a situation back in June 2007 (before his year long ban), where the consensus on ANI was that section was a personal attack and should be removed. When he got blocked for it, he started inserting it on the user talk page. I am bringing it up on ANI again, because he immediately re-added it, and I have blocked him 24 hours. (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing, for the previous discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)