User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 24

• 10
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• Archive 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30

Name mess

Sigh. Why can't people agree to disagree reasonably? I wish he didn't try so hard to show how right I am and end up redacted because of it, because that means he's going to really blow up now, most likely.

I mean, I can see where you are coming from, the abundance of sources means we are unlikely to do harm— but I still can't figure out where there is any sort of putative gain to the article parroting the information. And I do see the great harm that can be done by leaving it here; both as a magnet for vendettas (I think we're seeing some of that now) and as a source of libel (people, no matter how wrong, read "suspected of X" as "definitely guilty of X", no matter how wrong— it's not a mystery that "tried in the press" is a common idiom).

If the suspect was independently notable, I'd understand. If he was an adult, I'd be less inclined to be protective. But since, to date, the only response to the question "what does it add to the article" asked (and not only by me) has been along the lines of "It's obvious!" or "Are you kidding"... a great deal of indignation and no substance.

At this point, I'm not going to be swimming upstream for no good reason; defending someone (rightly) unpopular like that kid is painting a needless bullseye on one's forehead, and I'll soon get accusations of defending the suspect's actions flying. I'd rather this didn't degenerate so much. — Coren ^(talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

I'll thank you not to warn me inappropriately, or threaten me with blocks again. It has been several hours since I stated unequivicoally that I wouldn't be referring to the young man [redacted] as a "cold-blooded killer", no matter the facts in evidence, or my personal views. Your after-the-fact warning, and inappropriate threats of block (they're preventative not punitive) will be removed as soon as I finish posting here. Bellwether ^B_C 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You just did it again. Neıl ☎ 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. Your personal opinion of how this person should be referred to carries no more weight than my own. My current wording is benign, and states only what we know to be true. Bellwether ^B_C 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What we "know" is that Brandon McInerney is a suspect in the case. Nothing more, nothing less. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

On this occasion, your RfB did not succeed. I hope that you will continue your contribution to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, a significant majority of editors commenting did support your nomination. Warofdreams talk 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A shame about the minority though! Maybe I'll try for ArbCom again next year. Neıl ☎ 11:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My commiserations, it's a tough standard set over there... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole's block

I don't think the week long block was the right way to go. LC's being contentious to be sure and maybe even baiting you, but he at least seems to tacitly acknowledge error on his part. See my comments at User_talk:Locke_Cole#Blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfB

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, sorry about your RfB not passing. I thought that, as you've never received one, you might like the admins' T-shirt. Better luck next time, and best wishes. Acalamari 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to pass RFBs, don't feel disheartened. My advice is to keep contributing and take on-board the comments made, I look forward to hopefully being able to support next time if you run again. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Move request merry-go-round

Hi, since you closed the move discussion "NVIDIA" -> "Nvidia" about a month ago, could you drop by Talk:Nvidia#Requested move 3 and review if there is any merit in a move request back to "NVIDIA" that soon? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I realized today that it's going to take another few weeks for anyone to look at Bertrand Russell for GA review, and further that having a GA under my belt really has very little influence on being an administrator, i.e., none. If you are still willing to nominate me for adminship, I feel I am ready for another RfA. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me get this going!

I started a project I think you might be interested in. Seeing as it's detrimental to the Wikipedia project, I think the involvement of as many users as possible is essential. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Not so much snidey...

...as referencey. Will ^(talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Insulting the editor wasn't my objective. Bluntness, yes. I agree the reference was lost, my fault for not researching :/ Will ^(talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Neil, I know you missed out and that's crap, you'd make a splendid 'crat.. As I'm sure you know, my RfB was a success. I just wanted to say thanks for your support and I wanted to offer you my full support when you next head to the dead zone known as WP:RFB. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

very long thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hallo Neil, you've recently removed a neutrality template which I had added to an article as well as information from this article with the reason given Problem solved - simply remove the mention if you can't decide on how to describe the awarding institute. Remove neutrality tempalte - the talk page doesn't explain why it's there For the neutrality template: I believe that I've tried to explain why this article is currently not neutral (if it ever was) on the talk page, for example at Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas#Neutrality template. The concrete reason why I think the template should stay is that a user or group of other users, first under account user:Gancefort, and now under several IPs is trying to remove the mentioning of the birthdates and a critical review which I had (re-)added first here. For the information about a prize: The purpose of wikipedia is to provide facts. I'm not sure how problems can be solved by silencing important facts. Further, if we remove facts which could turn out unpleasent for a certain point of view, then only the "pleasent" prizes would stay, and the article could become even more non-neutral. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Hi Schwalker. Okay. Firstly, the neutrality template. See Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. The birth date will not be re-added to the article, and if that's the reason for the neutrality template, it really should not be there. This edit ([1]) is telling - you seem to want de Zayas labeled as a revisionist. Any such claim will need multiple very reliable sources. Such a notable figure's being a revisionist would not be confined to one cherry-picked review from an online discussion forum ([2]), unless the claim was a nonsense. This is also, I believe, why you want the award from the Ingolstadt Research Institute for Contemporary History included, and to describe them as a "far-right revisionist group". I can't find any evidence of this being the case. I find evidence of their being revisionist (eg [3]), but not "far right". You say "I'm not sure how problems can be solved by silencing important facts". The onus is upon you to show how the group is important and hence if their award deserves mention - do they have an article? A useful and typical cut-off point for whether awards should be included on an English Wikipedia biography is whether the awarding group has an article. 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (copied preceding contribution by User:Neil from my talk-page, --Schwalker (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)) Thank you for the fast response. I feel urged to clarify some points: For the birthdates: Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays says: "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people." Now Mr de Zayas has put a big effort on becoming a well-known person, his birthdates have been published in several papers (for example the "Ostpreußenblatt" according to other editors before me), so now I'm afraid he will have to carry this "burden" of his celebrity. I believe we can rule out identity-theft is his case. As far as I know, de Zayas has not complained at Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation so far because of the (re-)publication of birthdates, only anonymous IPs have tried to remove this piece of information. "you seem to want de Zayas labeled as a revisionist." No, even if this was true, it is not relevant what I want. Not I, but the review is calling him a revisionist. Or to give an exact quote from the review: "De Zayas stellt sich damit in das Lager der Geschichtsrevisonisten, die 1986 den Anlass fuer den bundesdeutschen Historikerstreit lieferten", "De Zayas [by demanding empathy from his readers, instead of giving an analytic, scientific account of facts] is siding with the history revisionists, who delivererd the occasion in 1986 for the Historikerstreit in Federal Germany". The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on H-Net is misleading, it is not just an "online discussion forum". The Web-Site also has an important reviews-section. As far as I know it is the most renowned public Web-site for humanities and social sciences. The Ingolstadt prize was allready in the article before I started editing it. On talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas#Ingolstadt Institute, I've mentioned and partly translated an account about the "Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle" from a German journal, which calls it far-right and revisionist. There also is an article de:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt about the institute. The award for de Zayas had been noted in the German press, for example in the important FAZ-Feuilleton in December 2001. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The Institute for Historical Review which you mention is a private club of Holocaust deniers itself, so I would not bee too surprised that their web-page doesn't call the Ingolstadt Institute far right and instead praises the Institute's conductor. --Schwalker (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Ich habe geantwortet auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) In response to your points on my talk page: The birthday - nope, if it's bing removed, even by anonymous IPs, then it can stay out. A birthday adds very little to an article. That quote says he "sided with the revisionists" on one occasion. It does not call him a revisionist. If the H-net article is wrong, then find a number of reliable references describing it as anything more than an online discussion forum and change it. There are seven fairly solid references in the H-net article from diffierent sources, all of which describe it as an online forum or messageboard. While it is indeed a reputable forum, with a great deal of interest and subscription, it's also less subject to scrutiny or peer review than a journal or even a major newspaper of record. I've addressed your point about the Ingolstadt institute on Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Re the addendum - I just picked a link at random describing them as "far right" - there weren't many. I couldn't find any describing them as revisionist. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (preceding contribution by User:Neil copied from my talk-page, --Schwalker (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)) Again, the policy says: ''Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, [under certain limitations]". I don't think that IPs should simply overrule this sentence by deleting sourced information. Besides it is not just about the birthday but also the -place. "sided with the revisionists" was my first coarse translation, more exact we could translate it as "De Zayas placed himself in the camp of those history revisionists, who ..." I think one occasion is enough, however there are other quotes from the review such as: "Verdacht [...], dass es sich um ein geschichtsrevisionistisches Werk handelt", "suspicion, that 'A terrible revenge' is a history revisionist opus" "allerdings ist der Grundtenor des Buches aehnlich revisionistisch gestimmt wie bei Publikationen dieser Interessenvertreter.", "the tenor of the book is tuned in a similar revisionist way as the publications of these representants [of the organizations of the expulsed Germans]" "Es ueberrascht daher nicht, dass de Zayas 1987 in der zweiten Auflage der deutschen Version des rezensierten Buches anerkennende Worte fuer die revisionistischen Wortfuehrer des Historikerstreits fand." "it is not surprising that de Zayas [...]found acknowledging words for the revisionist speakers in the Historikerstreit." My proposal for the article had been "De Zayas has been accused of taking a revisionist point of view..." which too does not say that he is accused of being a revisionist but that he takes such kind of view. I didn't say that the wikipedia-article H-Net is wrong, indeed further down it says: In addition to hosting listservs for specific academic disciplines, H-Net commissions book reviews [...]. You will find that this review in question has been referred to approvingly by other H-Net reviewers. I think here the onus would be on those who want to keep it out of the de Zayas article to prove the claim that the review is indeed wrong or unreliable. For the Ingolstadt institute I'll answer on the article's talk page. I believe you that you've picked a link at random. But isn't it rather the other way around (and as you had said it in the message before), that the IHR describes the Ingolstadt institute as revisionist but not as far right? Greeting --Schwalker (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Have answered at User talk:Schwalker#Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. --Schwalker (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Dear Neil, can you please have a look on this article again. IPs and Users are deleting the birthday date and place which was published in different sources in Germany. If I would now start to edit and revert that again, this would end in an edit war. Kind regards --KarlV (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Dear Neil, KarlV has evidently something against de Zayas. If you look at the German Wiki article and the archived sections, you will see that he has some one hundred entries, all of them pretending to suggest that de Zayas is a right winger (notwithstanding the fact that de Zayas is member of many left-wing and left-leaning organizations, as can be seen in his private website). KarlV has been caught with his pants down citing wrong sources. For instance, with regard to the book "Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle", he pretends that it has been disproven by scholars (notwithstanding the fact that the book was brilliantly reviewed by Christopher Greenwood in the Cambridge Law Journal, by Andreas Hillgruber in the Historische Zeitschrift, and that it is currently being used by the International Committee of the Red Cross in its trainings on international humanitarian law). When you look at the source proferred by KarlV, you find out that it is a single footnote in an article about something else (written by Juergen Wieland, a former prosecutor in the German Democratic Republic, and certainly not a "scholar", but a political activist in the "antifa" movement). Now, the footnote by Wieland refers to three sources. If you look at those three sources, you discover that they do not mention "Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle" at all, or de Zayas, or his methodology. Only one of the sources mentions a book review that de Zayas wrote in the 1970s in the American Journal of International Law. Still, KarlV and another fellow called Giro have managed to keep that wrong information in the German Wiki article, which is currently "gesperrt". Countless Wiki-Users have corrected KarlV and Giro, and yet they do not give up. Such Wiki-Users should be permanently blocked from meddling with Wiki. Evidently they have a political agenda. It is rather disingenous of KarlV to point out that he is only adding place and date of birth. If you look at his sources, you realize that they are rather obscure and not in the "public domain" in the sense of generally available information. It is not important to divulge the complete date of birth of an individual. Nor for that matter the place of birth. If you look at the "bios" that appear in any of de Zayas' books -- Nemesis at Potsdam (Routledge), the German expellees (Macmillan), A Terrible Revenge (St. Martin's Press), The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau (University of Nebraska Press), Heimatrecht ist Menschenrecht (Universitas), Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice (Transnational Publishers), Rainer Maria Rilke: Larenopfer (Red Hen Press, Los Angeles), etc. etc. you will not find this information. In the Gernman wiki KarlV pretends that de Zayas is the great-grandson of Alfredo de Zayas y Alfonso, Cuba's fourth republican President. Now, who cares who his great-grandfather was or wasn't? The addition of this information is probably only intended to suggest that the books of de Zayas are somehow not neutral because of his family background. This information, if correct, could of course be included in the Wiki. But it is certainly not particularly important, nor is it crucial to put it at the very top of the article. Another Wiki user, Schwalker, keeps taking out the comments of other Wiki users (just look at the history, how often he undoes the work of others). Schwalker seems obsessed with citing "Blick nach Rechts", a left-wing fringe organisation today associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany and notorious for defaming CDU and CSU politicians. It is a muckraking outfit that tries to suggest that CDU and CSU parlamentarians have a "Nazi past" -- and it monitors any statement that does not conform with extreme left wing perspectives on history or current affairs. Wiki users in Great Britain, Ireland, US have no clue that this Blick nach Rechts was founded and financed with monies from the "Stasi" the secret service of the German Democratic Republic (remenmber the 2007 film "Das Leben der Anderen" on the life of a Stasi agent, which got the Oscar for best foreign film) and that even today BNR gives you links to all sorts of extreme left wing organizations in Germany and Austria. Information that appears in Blick nach Rechts is certainly not for the Wiki, except to illustrate the manipulations of media in public discourse. But Schwalker does not claim that BNR directly attacks de Zayas. He notes that BNR attacks the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, a conservative think tank in Germany, which gave an award to de Zayas in 2001. Thus, indirectly, if the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle is defamed, some of the dirt passes on to de Zayas. Maybe you should consider blocking Schwalker for a while, especially for his repeated erasing of other users' contributions. A reader from Ireland 84.203.178.18 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

(thanks template expunged to User talk:Neil/RFA spam)

Ah, us two of the unpopular opinions! Maybe next time around? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for you. Probably not for me. (sad face) Neıl ☎ 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Neil, I read this post of yours on George's talk page about the Mackan block. In it you note an apology, which I have yet to see. Would you please tell me where this apology has been made? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oof, you're right - he said "I apologize for making mistakes", not "I apologize for making a mistake", implying he still doesn't believe this was a mistake. I will append my comment appropriately. Neıl ☎ 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - a fair amount of the response to this block goes to GWH continuing to push even after the unblock (which he critised). The fact that Mackan felt it necessary to reveal his identity to Alison and prove his innocence is completely unacceptable, in my opinion, and George has a lot of explaining to do. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blood Electrification deletion

Hey Neil. I can't find a reason for the deletion of the Blood Electrification article, performed by you on Dec 21st, 2007. I can't find a reason for deletion, and, strangely enough, it can't find it on the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 21. What happened ?

If possible, can you reply via e-mail to gusmolina at gmail.com ?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusmolina (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). Neıl ☎ 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordans, Buckinghamshire

Please can you unlock your move lock on Jordans, Buckinghamshire. If you do I give you my word as a trusted editor that I will not move it to Jordans which was the basis of the dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then where are you planning to move it? Neıl ☎ 11:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere unacceptable, if at all. Why would you question me on this. The point is that if there is no dispute it shouldnt be locked and when is ay there is no dispute you should trust me. Trying to avoid a request on WP:RPP and hoping you will respond positively and in good faith. . Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The page isn't locked - it's move-protected to prevent further move-warring ([4], [5]. Considering you were half-responsible for the move-warring (making 2 of the 4 moves), I can only presume you want it unprotected to move it. Where are you planning to move it? Neıl ☎ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really any of your business? 195.104.240.7 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it any of yours? Neıl ☎ 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the move protection I am requesting be unlocked, and because the move-warring dispute is over, not for any other reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The move warring had to end, as the article was move-protected. Unless there's a good reason to remove the move-protection, I don't see the point of removing it, other than enabling further move-warring. Neıl ☎ 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Minghella

It seems that there are a lot of references missing and that those which are there are in various formats. Help!  : )--Beth Wellington (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support :-). I'd rather not have any of my map contributions on Wikipedia anymore. I genuinely wish to have them removed. I went into the IRC chat room after being more confused after reading the articles on deletion. A couple of users said placing Db-g7 on there would do the job. Apparently not though since Bibliomaniac15 removed my request for deletion with no reason or explanation given whatsoever. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you would not like them. Neıl ☎ 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional reading on Liberalism

Hey Neil

I thought that was an elegant closing rationale you used to close this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Additional reading on Liberalism and also a good way to handle the article. I had it watchlisted as I had intended to !vote in that AfD, but got backlogged. Nice job. If we are going to rant about what we think are poor admin actions, then we should also point out the particularly good ones also. Regards, — Becksguy (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Neıl ☎ 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, not sure if it has any bearing on anything. The article lived there once before and got moved back. Also, in the process of the nomination, because the author kept removing the AfD notice he was banned. (Permanently, which I personally thought was very heavy-handed. A one week block would have made more sense.) You might consider removing his ban since otherwise the chances of anyone else working on the article are slim. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Who was the user who was banned? Let me know and I'll take a look. Neıl ☎ 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 was the blocked user and author of the bibliography. While I personally am not a fan of the bibliographies, and he was annoying in removing the AfD notice repeatedly, I feel like a permanent block was over the top. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly was, given nobody actually even tried to point the user towards the relevant policy. Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the block on Rubbersoul20, although I will reinstate it if he starts messing about with the sub-article's location again. Neıl ☎ 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking the user. I had second thoughts myself. Though in my defence, I had originally given him/her a 15 min block plus an escalating series of warnings. When an IP account threatened to carry on the behaviour using 300 possible IP addresses. I had enough. Thank you for closing the AfD and re-instating the user. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are rather forgiving, I think. A threat to misbehave with 300 IP addresses seems worthy of an longish block for that alone. Although not for the bibliography, and the unblocking for that seems fair based on rationale. Regards — Becksguy (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

an article I feel has a hint of copyvio and ad-ishness

Please could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation? special, random, Merkinsmum 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From out of the Rain

If you've read the discussion, then you'd notice that I was part of the discussion. No concensus had been reached. So unless you can prove your point of view, other than by "it looks right", I will stick to my point of view, which I have written about on the discussion page. To reiterate, the question revolves around "From out of the Rain", where the object is "Rain" vs "From Out of the Rain", where the object is "Out of the Rain". Within the context of the episode, the line that refers to the title is "They came from out of the rain", where the sentence breaks down as "They came [from out of] [the rain]." DonQuixote (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to be wholly wrong, but I've realised arguing whether it should be an "O" or an "o" is lame, and I've lost interest. Neıl ☎ 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked at WP:RPP for semi-protection of de Zayas' Talk page

Happy to let you handle this one, if it sounds to you that any action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I don't think any action is needed, there seems to be a confusion over what construes a "personal attack". Neıl ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange Edit War

A group of editors have developed a version of an article [6] that meets all Wikipedia policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. [7] One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea how I got sucked into this article in the first place, but Dane Rauschenberg has to be the target of the most bizarre set of sockpuppetry I have ever seen, most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject. User:207.91.86.2 was part of one of the newer batches of sockpuppets, and his identity as a sockpuppet was confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. After being outed, User:Racepacket created User:Runreston, also confirmed as a sockpuppet, and also blocked permanently. As soone as Runreston was blocked, Racepacket came out with a new set of IP addresses disrupting the article. There are no alternative "groups" here; There is a stable article and a single individual and his sockpuppets who have a monomaniacal obsession with this one individual and this one article, devoting well over 90% of edits to this one person. While I am working on documenting a new sockpuppet request for the latest crew of abusers, can you recommend any means to prevent further abuse, such as protecting the Dane Rauschenberg article from edits by IP addresses and new users? Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to thank you for responding to my request. I disagree with the above comments by Alansohn who is the subject on a long-standing and on-going Request for Comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn. In that request, his efforts to canvass and coordinate with ""Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" came to light. They have obviously coordinated edits on the article to produce this version.

The history of this article was that it was written exclusively by its subject for many months, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Runnerguy, and the subject is still making comments on his article's discussion page. The article was proposed for deletion, which drew Alansohn to it as a test case of his all-inclusionist views. Later, the companion article Fiddy2 was proposed for deletion, and you presided over its merger with the main article.[8] Most of the edits to the article have been by Rauchenberg under his various usernames, followed by Alansohn and his cohort Norton. However, there is a group who appear to be running enthusiasts, who happen to live in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, who have also edited the article and produced this version. When editors disagree with Alansohn, he dismisses all of their concerns through personal attack. When checkusers show that they are distinct users, he argues with the result claiming that because they work civilly with each other, and disagree with him, they have to be the same person because they live in the same metropolitan area, although in different States. He confuses and misrepresents "likely" as "confirmed"[9] and he freely interchanges the usernames of the various parties involved.fourth bullet

Between Rauchenberg and Alansohn, I think a major misrepresentation is being foisted on the public under the Wikipedia banner. This is a simple case of a gentleman using Wikipedia to burnish his resume while attempting a career change, with Alansohn not being able to see through the smoke. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an outline for a post-block article. Thanks 207.91.86.2 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some quite complex allegations here - as the article still has 6 days or so before its protection lapses, there's no rush so I will look into them carefully. Thank you for the constructive suggestions on the talk page. Alan, it would be helpful if you would comment on the content suggested by the IP, rather than going on about "hateful and derogatory claims", which is not constructive. Neıl ☎ 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• You have communicated with User:207.91.86.2. However, you communictaed with him as User:Xcstar (see here) one of the sockpuppets permanently banned as a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. After Xcstar was banned, User:Runreston was immediately created in defiance of the earlier block. Runreston was permanently banned as a result of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd). Immediately after this ban, User:158.59.27.249 and User:158.59.91.249 started editing the article. I am unsure what exactly the issue is that User:Racepacket has with Dane Rauschenberg. However, it is impossible for any rational editor to take his "constructive suggestions" at face value. Wikipedia has a horrendous problem with bending over backwards to allow abusive and disruptive editors to continue editing, allowing the abuse and disruption to continue beyond any reasonable good faith effort. User:Racepacket has clearly crossed that line and is still hard at work on disrupting Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• What disruption is the IP making? Even though the IP formerly edited under the above names, I see an attempt to be constructive and work with others. I am inclined to assume good faith and take the effort to edit collaboratively at face value. Neıl ☎ 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Having seen User:Racepacket's previous bad faith with this article, I find your willingness to toss out all previous abuse as rather hard to justify. He fooled you once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg, voting no less than three separate times on the one article, shame on him. He was confirmed as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket, shame on him. He created yet another sockpuppet immediately after being caught, confirmed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), shame on him. He set up two new sockpuppets after User:Runreston was blocked, shame on him. How many times are you willing to have someone disrupt Wikipedia, evade administrative punishments and then ignore the clearest possible track record of abuse? The past tolerance of this abuse and disruption is what has allowed it to continue through hundreds of unproductive edits. Despite this clear history, how can you be willing to accept his latest claims in good faith? Alansohn (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be characterising the edits as unproductive and the IP as abusive because you disagree with them. Again, I see the IP, although previously guilty of vote-stacking, trying to work constructively, and all I see from you is a continual refusal to do so based on months-old events. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 08:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I seem to be characterizing them as unproductive because they come with the baggage of someone who has abused Wikipedia policies on multiple occasions relating to a rather distrubing monomaniacal obsession with this one article. He fooled you into misreading consensus by votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg, and was caught twice with his pants down in creating sockpuppets to edit this one article, all in the past few weeks, not months. This has been an ongoing pattern of malicious attack since User:Racepacket created the Rauschenberg AfD in November 2007 and then turned over his personal anti-Rauschenberg agenda to a series of sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Assume good faith means that we should assume people are not trying to harm Wikipedia, barring evidence to the contrary. It is disturbing that you can possibly interpret Wikipedia:Assume good faith to mean that all previous examples of staggering bad faith should be ignored regardless of their clear intention to harm Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neil, how are you coming on your proposal? If nothing else, you can take either version and strip out the controversial parts and then allow us to develop a consensus before adding any of the extra back in. Alternatively, you can pick between the two versions as the starting point for future editing. Thank you for your efforts. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neil, thanks for the proposal. I have left some further suggestions on the discussion page. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Neıl ☎ 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Harries

Does PC78's latest edit count as canvassing? It's pretty clear with Harries being transsexual, may find a number of LBGT type peeps suddenly voting to keep... Minkythecat (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope they have more sense then that, and would judge the article on its merits, or lack thereof. Wikiproject deletion sorting is frequently misused to short circuit AFDs and force keeps when it looks like they may be deleted - see also WP:Article rescue squad - but it's not intended for that, and adding AFDs to the relevant sort categories is permitted. Neıl ☎ 09:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Closure of AfD

Er, sorry about that. I wasn't aware there was a five day rule at all, actually. Could you point me to the relevant policy? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on editing

Congratulations on having an awesome and perfect edit summary.[10] -- SEWilco (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Woo, I iz famuz. Neıl ☎ 11:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD question

Now at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#List_of_Systems_Biology_Research_Groups. Neıl ☎ 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Neil, I'd like an admin's perspective on this 'cause I'm confused. Also, the AFD page needs to be fixed I think. I nominated this page for deletion on the basis of, well, you can see my criteria. It's based on discussion here and here. I'm asking you 'cause I remember you answered an AFD question for me a while back, but we don't know each other really beyond that, and you seem to be heavy into AFD discussion. Anyway, User:Mdd moved the page here, which is OK I guess, and since its out of mainspace I unlinked it. My basic thought process is here along with Mdd's thoughts on the matter. I think it's a valid resource for the wikiproject, but moving it there really defeats the purpose of the AFD - if stand-alone lists of external links only are valid. Irrespective, the AFD needs to be fixed. Your thoughts? My ultimate goal is a bit more clarity from the Lists pages since I find them unclear. Anyway, thanks for any input. WLU (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to centralize discussion over at WP:WPLIST. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of Systems Biology Research Groups WLU (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I just saw this note. I believe that User:Dhartung's close of the AfD by endorsing the move of the list to project space was incorrect. If this were my issue I'd start by asking Dhartung to undo his close. If he declined, I'd take it to DRV. One of the benefits of an AfD is there can be a wide-ranging discussion of the future of the page, and it might be possible to convert it into a real article. Plus, there is no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space; the AfD voters could consider that issue as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I'm unsure what the problem is - I think moving lists that are inappropriate as an article of their own in their current condition but could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles is entirely appropriate, and I don't think it's done enough. Neıl ☎ 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Hi, I was the guy that moved the article to the WikiProject Systems space. I wonder what you ment with the remark: no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space. In my perception there are different Wikipedia spaces: The Wikipedia article talkspace The Wikipedia:Community space under the Wikipedia:Community Portal The Wikipedia:WikiProject spaces: the subpages behind the Wikipedia:WikiProjects and the userpages and all the sub user pages: with I call the "userspace". These spaces have differnt objectives an different rules. It is not so much that I want to have a carte-blanche, or that I want to bend the rules. But these lists are of some importance to the operation of WikiProjects. I would like to keep them on way or another. If you want to change all this. I would like to participate in the discussion and explain my point of view. You allready stated that those list could be a valuable resource to help create and improve other articles. This is waht really is happening. I will go into the more technical details on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists page. -- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Note it was User:EdJohnston, not I, who said there's no carte-blanche for lists of links to exist in Wikipedia space. As I said, if they have a viable use in improving articles, I think it's fine for them to exist in Wikipedia space. Neıl ☎ 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Neil, Ed and Mdd, would you mind if I pasted this over to the WP:WPLIST talk page? This is the exact discussion I'd like to have, but I'd rather more input from the wikiproject and it's more likely to get it if it's there rather than a user talk page. WLU (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, it's fine if you want to move the thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 2/4 editors say move! Good enough for me. I'll paste it at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of Systems Biology Research Groups with a comment. WLU (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Perkinsus marinus.png

Hello. In the deletion log for Image:Perkinsus marinus.png I note that you mentioned "(Replaceable fair use image)". I was wondering if you could specify which image to use as a replacement to illustrate the Perkinsus marinus article, since that article no longer has an image. Which replacement should now be used? Thank you very much. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Get camera 2) Find oyster with perkinsus marinus. 3) Take photo of oyster 4) Upload photo of oyster to Wikipedia 5) Freely release photo of oyster (under GFDL or CC-by-SA) 6) Add photo to article 7) Done

The image is replaceable as a free alternative could easily be created - not that a free alternative already exists. Neıl ☎ 11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Could you please do the editors of the Perkinsus marinus article a favor and post these easy image replacement instructions on the discussion page there? Since the structures in the deleted image are only 2 to 15 ${\mu }m$ across could you also please recommend an electron microscope to use with the camera? I note that you mentioned having a Biomedical Engineering degree from Birmingham on your user page and I suspect that your technical expertise in this area will greatly help the people who set out to easily replace the illustration that you deleted. Thanks again for your assistance. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the Hitachi TM-1000 Tabletop Microscope.^{http://www.hitachi-hta.com/pageloader~type~product~id~450~orgid~42.html} It's set to transform the field of basic microscopy, apparently. I'm afraid I had very little to do with oysters whilst in university. Other than at a restaurant. They weren't very nice. Neıl ☎ 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting what looks like a great microbiological electron microscope. I suspect you are right in that it will help to more easily reproduce the image that was deleted from the P. marinus article. Please feel free to post your suggestions over at Talk:Perkinsus marinus and help those people improve that article.

Oh, by the way, the image that you deleted is not covered by Canadian Crown copyright, rather, it is licensed separately by Fisheries and Oceans Canada under: "Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Important Notices". Retrieved 2008-04-11. (et "Pêches et Océans Canada - Avis importants" (in Français). Retrieved 2008-04-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) ) which mentions the following terms explicitly:

Information on this site, other than government symbols, has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We ask only that:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada be identified as the source department; and
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

From which I infer that the Canadian (Department of) Fisheries and Oceans will not attempt to sue Wikipedia off the internet if you choose to restore the image for use in illustrating the Perkinsus marinus article. Among other things the article does not do any of the things prevented by the license and does follow the proscriptions mentioned therein. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe the image to be acceptable, upload it with the appropriate tag. I don't particularly feel like doing your bidding. Neıl ☎ 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CN tagging

Okay, Neil, I'm game. explain to me why you feel the Ibiza tagging doesn't inspire people to actually add citations more than a general 'uncited' tag slapped at the top of the article. I mean, I am tempted to simply go through and remove uncited info (much of it being such since the article's creation in '05). I am going to revert your removal but will wait until the conclusion of discussion either here or in the article discussion before proceeding beyond that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently you utterly missed my post here and in the article discussion for Ibiza where I explained my reasoning for reverting your removal of the cn tags. AS for the other little barb about seeking out citations, please take more than a cursory glance at the eit history for the article. I am the only person who has added any citations for the past three weeks. It did not escape notice that while there, you failed to add a citation. Before you remove the splinter from my eye, perhaps you could take a moment and remove the log from your own. If you have a problem with the cn tags, roll up your own sleeves, do some Google searching of your own and add some citations. I am sure you will be able to find them, as my reverting back in of the citation tags will help you know where the citations are actually needed (as opposed to having to guess from a general tag slapped on the top of the article).

Now, if you think my post was a bit short with you, consider that you make your edits and then post in the discussion page. I appreciate the value of discussion, not fait accompli. Arcayneopedia, indeed. Show some AGf, sport. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[11] - do your homework, chief. Consensus is very much against you vis-a-vis splattering the article with {{cn}} tags. As your own edit summary said less than an hour ago, "build a consensus before forcing your edits on the community, pls". Neıl ☎ 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Different article, different situation, as I am sure you are well aware of, having had your works taken out of context as well. Btw, since we are being all pally and whatnot, you can keep calling me chief and I'll call you sport. How's that? I've responded to your comments on Ibiza talk. I greatly look forward to your reasoned, experienced reply on how to fix the situation. Please note that anotehr call for me to roll up my own sleves when you apparently cannot be troubled to do so yourself will likely be taken in a poor light. Seeya there, sport. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And what consensus were you referring to, exactly? Lekoman and the non-returning anons? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil -- what's up here? Avb 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your input isn't going to be helpful here, Avb, judging from this remark left as an edit summary blanking our conversation less than an hour ago. Considering that you just 'happened' to show up, I am willing to hazard a guess that your contributions here aren't really going to be even-handed or even neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Neil - your talk page happens to be on my watchlist and I am interested in hearing your opinion on Arcayne's behavior. Feel free to e-mail me. Avb 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, Avb - I have no wish to get involved in the dispute you're having with Arcayne. It seems to be getting rather nasty, whereas the dispute (such as it is) between myself and Arcayne remains confined to snark and refusal to listen to the other's point of view. I would prefer to keep it that way. Neıl ☎ 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, at least,Neil. Okay, backing off the snarky (which I think we should both do), I am listening to your point of view.I simply disagree with it, and am asking for follow-up explanation. Are you listening to mine? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. I am not especially bright, and have managed to figure out where citations need to go. Most people are capable of doing so, and plastering every sentence with cite tags isn't needed. They're ugly. It also makes parsing the article nigh-impossible for the visually impaired using screen readers (see Wikipedia:Accessibility). An {{unreferenced}} tag is better; it conveys the same message (this article is in sore need of references) without making the current article unreadable. Neıl ☎ 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that I did not consider the issue of accessibility (screen readers). Note that I don't think the cn tags are pretty at all; their placement was an attempt to encourage folk to find a citation - just one - and add it. If any of the 40+ visiting anons had done that, there wouldn't be any uncited information. I think the general tag is kind ofa cop-out - a tool of the weak to cover up a lot of work that they themselves don't want to do/don't have the time for. In any other field, you mark in your work what remains to be done, especially if you wok with a group. You don't just say 'this needs work', because people see it and are daunted in that they have to figure out what's uncited, what needs citation and then go out and cite it. It's reinventing the wheel every frakkin' time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"In order to know "some" German, French, or Spanish, one merely needs to have http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en bookmarked."

Classic :D. At least we're using Wikipedia Review for the purposes it's supposed to be for (theoretically) and not for whining because we were banned. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a forum. There may be some Bad users, but it doesn't mean WR is Bad. "The gun is the tool, the mind is the weapon", and all that. Neıl ☎ 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Stuff like my Mark Speight thread was supposed to gather opinions on how we should treat people who have disappeared. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WR has a different perspective than Wikipedia. Differing opinions are often interesting, and I find they help me to get a better understanding of an issue. It doesn't mean I always agree with the opinions expressed on WR, but it often provides food for thought. Neıl ☎ 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jo Wiltshire deletions

I do not understand your actions here. There was certainly no clearly expressed consensus -- especially since one of the "delete" editors in effect claimed that Random House, one of the English-language world's major publishers, was a "vanity press" -- which I would think indicates the opinion should have been ignored. I also do not see why you summarily deleted the article on her recent book -- independent third party reviews have appeared recently -- for a book published only two weeks ago -- providing the necessary indicia of notability. Please review and reverse your actions here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the reader - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Wiltshire‎. Hi Minos - I don't deliberately look at a deletion discussion and think "hmm, consensus seems to say it should be kept so I'll delete it!" In my view I'm afraid the consensus was for deletion. You are perfectly free to ask me about it of course - which you have - but as I believe it was the appropriate decision, the appropriate location for further redress is WP:Deletion review. Neıl ☎ 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You made a mistake

Hi, Neil. I've corrected a misconception of yours here. It's a minor thing, but I'd still quite like to see a response from you. I try to be careful when I post on ANI (or anywhere, for that matter), and it's not really nice to be so cavalierly cast as careless/deceitful/biased, etc. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

A question and/or a big request

Hello, I see that you live in Chester and that you work for local government. I've tried in the past to email Chester District to ask a question about the civil parishes in the district, but got no answer. Would you know who might be the best person to email to get a response? (I want to know about certain parishes which seem to exist at the moment, from information I have in a number of sources, but which don't appear to have any parish councils or meetings, and do not apparently have any joint council meetings with neighbouring parishes. They don't sometimes appear on government sites that supply various census figures, either.) I want to do this, so that we in the Cheshire WikiProject can complete our coverage of all civil parishes in the county before the local government changes come into force in the next year or so. Now, I know it is a large request, but would you be able to point me in the right direction to a person who could spare some time answering a question along the lines I've mentioned? Many thanks, either way.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page for information): Thanks. I know about that site, but it only deals with parishes that appear to already have a parish council, meeting, or joint ones of these. There are some which exist according to some official sources (like Crewe, near to Farndon), and yet seem absent from other official lists. I didn't notice Liz Raynor's details last time I looked, and so I think I'll contact her. Many thanks for the reply.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Background

Hey,

How can i setup a background on my userpage like you do? Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizer07 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My userpage is protected, but you can click "View source", copy the wikitext, and use it. Make sure you change it so it's not my words, though! Also, you need to use tildes to sign your comments, not lines ((~~~~, not ----)). Neıl ☎ 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The user User:201.230.126.147 has been going through the Madonna tour pages The Girlie Show Tour, Drowned World Tour and Confessions Tour and adding random Madonna songs to the setlists and against the current accurate ones. JWAD (talk

I have added references to the pages to stop any confusion, I hope this helps. It still doesn't excuse the user for randomly adding any songs to the setlists. JWAD (talk

no problems, glad I could help JWAD (talk