User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Hey :)

I noticed you unblocking / fixing a lot of TOR IP's / user talk's tonight.... First off, thanks for the help! :) Secondly, I'm just curious, are you working from User:SQL/Funky_TOR, or, some other source? Thanks again! SQL^{Query me!} 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! And they're not TOR IPs any more, that's why I've been unblocking them :) I've been working off the lists Mercury (talk · contribs) has been posting to WP:AN/I - he has a bunch more at User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor. I didn't know you had a list too! Is it the same? Is it worth your communicating with Mercury to reconcile the two lists? Neıl ☎ 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thought I'd let you know, I made a major rewrite to the tor posting software, there shouldn't be any more nodes slipping through, unless they became nodes since it last ran... When I ran it last, it shoved about 30 nodes over from not tor, to tor, so, I think the bug is fixed :) Should be running every 6 hours now, too. SQL^{Query me!} 12:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tor

I have populated the page. Thank you for your help. At last count, there were about 1300 I believe... this is due to the blocking of transient Tor nodes for 5, 10, indef period of years. They accumulated. There are a couple of solutions on board, one of which is a bot of BC that I will be posting to AN here in a bit. Thank you again Neil, you have always been there, and helpful. Regards, Mercury (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)

The semi-protection on this article is not working. There have been three offensive edits on it since 17 January, all now oversighted. Can you restore semi-protection to prevent IP edits? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Neıl ☎ 08:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl

Since you were the blocking admin in regards to this editor last time and know the history, I'd ask you to keep an eye on this editor's current conduct. Baiting comments such asthis are unhelpful. I have removed it and mentioned it to him on his talkpage, hopefully his edits will be more helpful in future. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Football in the Republic of Ireland

Surely if there is no consensus the page should be reverted back to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland where it was moved without discussion? Gnevin (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The page was only briefly there because you moved it without discussion, and it was moved back. Until (unless) a consensus can be achieved, the article should stay where it is. Neıl ☎ 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No the page was there for a year and I discussed it [[1]]Gnevin (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus for any further moves at this point. Neıl ☎ 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, the page was moved without consensus the status quo should have been restored Gnevin (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to restore the status quo. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Or you could say their isn't consensus for the new name, just you favor the people following the rules ? Not moving pages with out discussion ?.So if i move it to Association football in the Republic of Ireland can't be put back ? Gnevin (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You could, but I suggest a new discussion on Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland would be a better way to do this, suggesting a move from the current location to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. Neıl ☎ 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure why bother discussing it? Seems like a wasted effort if people don't like the move they can discuss it or so it seems to me, ps love how you created Association football in the Republic of Ireland rolleyesGnevin (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only a plain redirect - the article can be moved over it if you choose to do so. If you can't be bothered opening a discussion then do what you like - but someone (not me) will probably want to know why you didn't try and discuss it. Neıl ☎ 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)So lets get this clarified - you're supporting your close, yet you freely admit:

1. you don't\didn't understand the history of the page
2. you don't\didn't understand what the status quo was
3. you are supporting undiscussed moves over a discussed move
4. It appears to me you didn't bother to read the discussion
5. Closed 2 different discussions one from a year ago as one

Is that about the sum of it?Gnevin (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia:Requested moves is always backlogged - because people get upset if they don't get their own way, and most admins don't want to have to deal with all the complaining. The requested move discussion was whether the page should be moved from Football in the Republic of Ireland to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland. There was no consensus to move the page from "Football..." to "Soccer..." based on that discussion. All I did and all I wanted to do was make a determination on the discussion, and close the discussion appropriately. And because you didn't get the result you wanted, you're now asking for the page to be moved anyway. I say again - I would advise you to open a discussion if you want the page to be moved from "Football..." to "Association football...", or to anything else. Neıl ☎ 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's to hell with status quo... I shall being a campaign of page move across wiki , or i would it i wasn't for WP:Point . Great to see that one user can by no following the procedure can do as he likes, Move rejected by an ill-informed admin who doesn't want to admit they maybe wrong Gnevin (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't going anywhere now. I have suggested - twice - what I believe you should do. I have also pointed out, twice, that if you really want to move it to Association football in the Republic of Ireland, there is nothing stopping you, but I would advise you to gain a consensus through discussion first. Neıl ☎ 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Palabrazo unblock

I understand the concern that we're overusing the Duck test, but in this case there were a wide array of people who agreed with the result, and CU later confirmed it.

It would have been better if you'd discussed with the blocking admin or started an ANI thread on it rather than simply unblocking.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could block following confirmation of checkuser, rather than loose association? I nearly filed a checkuser on Sami/Mantan myself - if I had, would I have been blocked as a Wordbomb sock? The correct result was achieved here - the Palabrazo account was blocked following (what Jpgordon states is) positive checkuser evidence. "Possibly being a banned user" is poor grounds for a block. "Possibly doing something a banned user wants to do" is downright stupid, yet we see such blocks taking place all the time, and certain admins are absolutely bug-eyed insistent that this should be the case. It is illogical, and wrong. If Wordbomb or Amorrow or JB196 or whoever said "fix the typos on Article X", then anyone who does so is acting as the proxy of a banned user? Ludicrous. Neıl ☎ 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

b:Transwiki:Introduction to metrics, norms and inner products

Done; thanks.  —Mike.lifeguard|^@en.wb 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Vkontakte.ru

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vkontakte.ru. 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.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion review for Retarded Animal Babies

Please work with me. I am not doing this to harass or bother people or to besmirch the "good name" of Wikipedia. We have added further references (The Hartford Advocate article is not available online, but then, lots of people use non-internet articles as references every day). If we put proper copyright tags on the inages, will you acquiesce? Eric Barbour (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The references still aren't great, I'm afraid. You may find our policy on reliable sources interesting reading. Neıl ☎ 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dove1950

FYI - User_talk:Dove1950#Blocked. Black Kite 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why am I not surprised? Neıl ☎ 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jordana_Brewster.JPG

Hi. You had removed a CSD tag that I had placed on Image:Jordana_Brewster.JPG. I think I might have got the wrong criterion for speedy deletion. The image uploaded is the copyright of WireImage and is the first image that you will see on Brewster's gallery on IMDb. Could you tell me what is the appropriate course of action in this case? Thanks. Mkeranat (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. Neıl ☎ 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this

[2].Plutarch simply states a local word.Below he says they were Greeks and there is nothing that says what you wrote. "where it was fordable, and with the horse in several places, so that the Greeks, fearing to be surrounded, were obliged to retreat, and Pyrrhus, perceiving this and being much surprised, bade his foot officers draw their men up in line of battle".So you seee the Epirotan Army of Pyrrhus a greek armyMegistias (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=191254438&oldid=191254063

I believe the admin behavior in this case, given that the editor had yet to make an article space edit and was attempting to seek help in good faith, fails WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For the reader - here. The account in question was proved by checkuser to be a sockpuppet of another user, stirring up trouble. I am very much in favour of not biting, but acting on such cases is not such an example. Neıl ☎ 10:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison cell

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Prison cell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell update

Hey, Neil. I know it's been about four months since you set me on the article, but just to let you know, I am starting (again) to add more references into the article. The biography section is complete now, and consisted of about half of the article that required referencing. If I don't get distracted and forget again, I should be ready to nominate the article by the end of the month. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I would very much love to make a point of having improved this article at my next RfA. It's more of a personal pride thing at this point. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a question for you. Many of the sections later in the article contain quotations from one of Russell's many books - do you this these are enough to back up (i.e., reference) the information in those sections? Those sections focus mainly on his views anyway, and it seems redundant to provide a third-party citation when Russell himself is backing up the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Zacchara

Per this AfD decision was to delete but it was recreated by Randy Jaiyan (talk · contribs) on the 15th. Can you delete and maybe "salt"? KellyAna (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redeleted it and left a note on Randy Jaiyan's talk page. If it gets recreated again, I'll salt it. Thanks KellyAna! Neıl ☎ 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's back again. KellyAna (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's back again only with an additional name and Randy has re-registered to avoid his block Claudia Zacchara-Corinthos and User:Jason Roberts13578. Apparently he doesn't understand the "sock" concept. There's more evidence on my talk page over the sock issue but my concern in the Claudia article. Maybe you could also delete the Image:CarolineCarly Jacks.jpg as it's an illegal upload. KellyAna (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And if Claudia Zacchara-Corinthos wasn't enough, he also created Clodia Zacchara to further evade the deletion and blocks. KellyAna (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we had the redirect conversation but since the Claudia Zacchara article was deleted can we delete Clodia Zacchara and Claudia Zacchara-Corinthos? Those aren't even real names just a way to bypass the salt you did on Claudia. KellyAna (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wondering

That Randy Jaiyan created a bunch of pages just for the sake of directing to another page, specifically his target was Carly Corinthos. Can those pages be deleted as it is clear they were never pages just pages with various versions of Carly's name. They also include Carly Jacks which is another variant of her name. If you could help, it would save a lot of hassle down the road. I can get the names of the pages if you'd like but most of them are what he created or redirected to. KellyAna (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again KellyAna. We encourage the creation of redirects - it prevents multiple articles on the same topic being created. For example, George Walker Bush, George W Bush, G. W. Bush, Bush Junior, George Bush Jr, President George W Bush and so on all redirect to George W. Bush. Neıl ☎ 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in general, these are completely made up names that no one would associate with the character he's obsessed with. Essentially he made up several names while he was here Sunday. He made up names to the point where if she "slept" with another character, he gave her that name as if sleeping with someone automatically makes you married to them. Do you see where I'm seeing a difference? Just so you can see an example John Michael Jacks was the name of an infant no one remembers, but Randy created a page just to redirect it to a different page. Many times on soaps babies have two or three names but in general, there's only one common name and the redirect is unnecessary. KellyAna (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do, but really, there's no space limit and the redirects don't do any harm (see WP:Redirects are cheap for more). If they really bug you, you can request they be deleted via the "Redirects for deletion" page, but I am not allowed to just delete stuff because you or I don't like it. Neıl ☎ 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks for the links and the help. KellyAna (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick, Neil...

...all Wikipedians look alike to me... It's the light in here, it's very bad... I need new glasses... He looked like you from behind... <wanders off muttering more excuses>... ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm fighting the urge to make a wholly inappropriate joke now, though :) Neıl ☎ 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Neil, would you mind if I changed the first sentence of Betacommand's warning with this template, and have the rest of your comment underneath? It just seems more formal that way. .:Alex:. 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk (short answer: please don't). Neıl ☎ 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello Neil. I am writing regarding this article for which you closed the AfD debate: [3]

I don't think there was really a concensus to delete it. Only three people gave opinions on it. Two to delete and one to keep. I think the subject is notable enough to have an article. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, could you look into this? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was clearly "delete" based on the arguments presented. Deletion review is the appropriate place to seek further review. Neıl ☎ 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for notifying me ;) Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3

Do come, we'll be having a lovely time :) Merkinsmum 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article revision

Hi Neil, I would like you to check out the article Manuel Rodríguez de Castro, in specific the discussion page, were my name and my fiancée´s name are displayed with totally false statements. I would really thank you if you could remove at least that part and also check if the article is within Wikipedia's standards.

I checked out and this same article was deleted from the Spanish Wiki (Here).

Sorry for the bad English, thanks again! --Interdiktor (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, see User talk:Interdiktor. Neıl ☎ 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil! --Interdiktor (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wickaninnish Inn

Hi Neil. I clicked a redlink and noticed that you deleted Wickaninnish Inn. Would you mind restoring it or userfying it for me? It is widely regarded as a landmark and one of the best institutions of its kind in Canada. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All sorted, see User talk:Clayoquot. Neıl ☎ 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In other news

I don't know if you've noticed, but shoe polish is still sitting at FAR. It's just had a delist comment, so maybe you want to take a look. Marskell (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The review has remained open because it didn't get any clear keep or remove comments. Sorry you were unaware. It'll be closed soon; last on the list. Marskell (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cheers Tim. I have done the edit summary of this message in your honour. Neıl ☎ 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Rouge admins

Hi Fish and karate,

I noticed that you still use the Category:Rouge admins on your userpage/usertalk page. Please consider removing it, as it has now been deleted as of this discussion. Have a nice day!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, {{TEMPLATE QUESTIONEER}}. I like the red category. It's rouge. Neıl ☎ 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I was planning on going "live" with the RfC in a couple of days if you'd like to look it over one more time. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MFD

It was over five days and by a rough majority most people voted keep. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote, Zenwhat - if it was, we could have bots close MFDs. Neıl ☎ 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Votes a tool," etc., etc..

Most people voted keep and the deletion arguments presented were silly.

If the MFD was closed, I'm fairly certain most people aren't going to care that much. It's a humorous user sub-page that offended some people. Offense, though, is not a good enough justification to censor. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the keep arguments were silly and the deletion ones were better, but that's always the way. My view is if it doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way (which it doesn't), and offends some users (which it does), then it shouldn't be here. Offense is a very good reason to "censor" (scare quotes as censoring is a dirty word these days). JzG tags discussions he doesn't like or questions he can't answer as "trolling", and this tool enables him to do it in a way he often gets away with. Neıl ☎ 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DepartedUser

Hi. Please don't link diffs from the above listed username to any other username. Additionally, please don't use me to support your witchunt. I want no part of your "encyclopedia." Thanks! Hcri (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A strange sentiment when you've taken the time to a) check for use of the above username b) create an account c) edit the RFC and d) post here. That suggests you still want to do something with the "encyclopedia". But, as you wish. Neıl ☎ 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I watch the RSS feed on a very few pages. Thanks for understanding. I'll log out now. Hcri (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your interesting articles

What are you talking about. It's just a word, I'm not literally calling that person a fuhrer, I simply used their picture to describe my envision of that made up person. Why do I need to change it? I'm not making fun of anybody. — NuclearVacuum 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind. And second off, you don't need to threaten me. I already changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearVacuum (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake help

Thank you for your assistance. Can you please inform User:Docu that this article needs to remain in English? I provided the references for him:

• THIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE is from Gruyère, translated to English, and uses "Lake of Gruyère"
• this page uses "lake"
• THIS Swiss tourism site uses "lake"
• this is another swiss website translated to English as "lake"
• this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
• this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
• a quick search of Google Scholar shows 373 hits for "lake" (looking for "lac de la" in scholar brings up many french sites - not english)

yet he still insists on having the article in French. This is occurring elsewhere, now with German lakes, Dutch lakes... I see you are from Wales, so maybe another English native can assist in explaining that we translate into English here on English wiki? Rarelibra (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I've move protected the article to prevent this happening again. But please don't copy and paste articles from one location to another - it destroys the article history. Neıl ☎ 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I am at my wits end. I am also facing the same thing with germanic users and german lake names. I put in several move requests regarding this. I feel that, once moved, these articles will have to be protected since german users are insisting to keep the names in german. There are perfectly appropriate translations into English, and you don't see us trying to change "Michigansee" into "Lake Michigan" in German wiki. Rarelibra (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake names

This is really getting carried away. I tried to properly move articles, and the dutch and/or german users are changing them back.

I have entered move requests to try to get these articles corrected. Rarelibra (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Eek, this is getting a mess. Now we have a counterproposal to move all of these back, again at WP:RM. I'm not sure it was a good idea carrying out Rarelibra's proposal so quickly, without prior discussion. These were pretty controversial proposals, and there was significant, well-reasoned opposition from multiple editors on relevant talk pages. It's more like a one-man crusade by Rarelibra that has now succeeded in a kind of coup. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the statement of a "one-man crusade". If you like, I will poll a bunch of English natives to see about their opinion, hmmm? Fact is, I noticed the inconsistency and want it corrected.

Neil - User:Docu is now going back to the Lake of Gruyère and attempting to retrofit a 'move request' by me (which is untrue) and even attempting to enter it into move requests like the move was done without merit. The original move was done by User:SomeHuman last year and Docu reverted it without merit (even after SomeHuman presented evidence of the name in English). I have presented further evidence and yet, Docu insists that my evidence does not stand? WTF is going on here? Rarelibra (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra can you provide use with evidence that the article was at "Lake of Gruyère" prior to your copy-and-paste mess? You haven't answered this on my talk page yet and just keeping posting this nonsense here and there. -- User:Docu

Hi Neil - I came to raise this issue with you but seems like I was beaten to it. I think it would be best to revert to the titles that stood in the first place - the one thing that WP:UE is absolutely crystal-clear on is that we should use the most-commonly used term in English, and absolutely no evidence was provided to say that this is the case for the new titles. The RM process should default to proposing moves to these new titles, not being used to get them moved back to the titles that previous editors felt were correct. I fear that in this case we have invented "English" names for these features which just aren't used by English speakers - and if it's not used by English speakers, UE doesn't support it at all. I honestly feel the cleanest way out is to revert to the status quo ante with no prejudice against proposing the new titles at RM. Knepflerle (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HERE is the proof of the page being moved originally back on 2007-04-01T14:12:14 by User:SomeHuman. He justified it correctly, as I did, by stating "English-language Wikipedia requires article name in English: the lake is by numerous sources called 'Lake of Gruyère' (though sometimes without accent grave))". I provided further evidence with even a webpage from Gruyère showing the English translation as "Lake of Gruyère". So there should be no 'revert to the status quo' as, technically, the page is where it now should have been. The contestment was only between SomeHuman and Docu but I am now another who supports the English name (with proof provided). Rarelibra (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came at this discussion after seeing the moves of IJsselmeer and Chiemsee, both of which are now at titles which I believe do not represent English usage. But basically this has all happened backwards - in the case of most of the moves which have been made no RM went in first and even more importantly no evidence of usage has been produced. Its one thing going back and justifying one move post hoc, but to make several moves with no consultation, discussion or production of the required evidence leads to messes such as this. Knepflerle (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Still he [persists]!!! Rarelibra (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence. Google Scholar search, in English, presents 373 hits for "Lake of Gruyère". Google Scholar search for "Lac de la Gruyère" in English gives us the following statement:

• There were no results in your selected language(s). Showing worldwide web results for Lac de la Gruyère.

In other words, NO USAGE in English for the French version. Rarelibra (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, take a look at the evidence provided at Talk:Chiemsee, and at Talk:IJsselmeer. This should have been sorted on a case-by-case basis. What was the case at Gruyère does not change the facts of English usage elsewhere, and the block of moves should not have been made without evidence. UE says to use what English speakers use most often - and they don't use "Lake Chiem" Knepflerle (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope. I am a native American English speaker. In looking at the name of a lake in another country, I would find the name (as in Chiemsee) and then find out how it translates into English. Then I would apply that translation for English usage. If you are originally dutch or german speaking and learned english - does that mean you qualify as "English speaking"? Your reference is different, as would be mine if I were to learn Dutch and attempt to translate an English name lake over to "meer" or to German as "see". English speaking - I have provided references as to translations INTO ENGLISH... yet no one appears to be taking these references seriously. Rarelibra (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what most English speakers actually do. Otherwise, there would be far more hits for these translations. English people use these names when writing in English and when reading in English. Why should we use anything other than what evidence shows they read and use. And where is the end of your translation slippery slope - "Snow-covered" for Nevada? Or perhaps more appositely Lakes for Lagos in Portugal ? Do English people really want or are helped by "White Mountain", "Mount Blanc" or "Blanc Mountain" instead of Mont Blanc? We can't and should not prescribe to English speakers what they should use because it is "more English" - we just record what they actually do use by looking at the evidence. If there is evidence that English speakers predominantly use a translation, then fine - show the evidence and move the page. But here the evidence says that "Lake Chiem" is as rare in usage as alligators in the Chiemsee. Knepflerle (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The new political football - zaatar

Hi Neil, I think I accidentally erased your category edit but there is some person who calls himself "food1234" or something like that, who keeps reverting all the referenced information I put in the article on that grounds that zaatar belongs only to Arabs. Sounds like he/she is too dimwitted to get into real political arguments on the Middle East conflict pages, so the solution is to turn food pages into a battle ground. I see you are an administrator, so maybe you can deal with him.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"accidentally" - hahahaha. No, I have no interest in getting involved in one of the lamest edit wars I have ever seen. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I see your name frequently at AN and AN/I, and I want you award you for all your work at those two places. Keep it up! Acalamari 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Neıl ☎ 09:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! You do a lot there, and I wanted to make sure your work was recognized! :) Acalamari 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page

Neil, why are the normal tabs on the top of your talk page ("edit this page", "history", and "add new section") not clickable? Is that something because of your "cabal-approved" sign that you have floating over it? This is pretty annoying, I can't get at this page's history or source text unless I know how to enter the url manually? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it's by design. Could be a Rouge-y joke. In any case, you can access those tabs just fine in Internet Explorer.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even realise - I use IE, and they work absolutely fine. How weird! I just checked it in Firefox, and you're right - they don't work. No idea why - I've moved the "cabal" sign, and it works in Firefox now - let me know if there's still a problem. Neıl ☎ 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, working now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jew hatter"

You just closed that thread AN/I before I got to point out how much I like Jewish hats! Damn edit conflicts. Marskell (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean yarmulkes, right? Ov vey, what a meshuga schlemiel you are! :) Neıl ☎ 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to pretend I have enough Yiddish phrases to make an appropriately amusing reply, but I don't. Slinks away unhappily. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I - but I have chutzpah! Wikipedia is your friend. Neıl ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wena Naty (song)

Why you delete the article if I add many references for non delete it?, why?. Answer in my talk page. --MisterWiki da ya think i'm sexy and ya want to speak me?, come on sugar let, come here! - 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 discussed on ANI

I wondered if you had a view you would like to share? As you're good at getting people to behave lol:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarah777 Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

edits in your RfB

In qusetion 5b you say that your answers appear in bold - but there are a few instances such as "note I do oppose reconfirmations" that are not in bold. Could you put your notes in bold too? Otherwise it is hard to tell if they are your ntoes or Twooars's notes. Cheers and good luck! Kingturtle (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done! Neıl ☎ 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RFB.

Hey Neil, good luck with your RFB, I hope you pass. :) About reconfirmation RFAs, I agree with you. I do not consider them worthwhile, more like a waste of everyone's time and effort; I'd like to see them prohibited as well. However, opposing a user on reconfirmation,—without regard to who the user is, or what they've done in the past—just because they are having a reconfirmation is, IMHO, a very weak, if not somewhat rude, reason to oppose. I accept that you are entitled to your opinion as well, but I won't retract my comment that opposing re-confirmations in this manner are "flimsy grounded." · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you found my reply satisfactory. Good luck once more, and I hope to run into you again more often in the future. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this to your RfB, in case it gets buried in the history. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As it seems I am getting pilloried by a minority for the horror of having an opinion they don't share (despite it being entirely dissociated from my ableness to evaluate consensus, change usernames or tag botflags), it's looking like it's pretty moot. But yes, I would have the good sense not to close reconfirmation RFAs. Neıl ☎ 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've just left you a couple questions there, just FYI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To blatantly invade AndonicO's section, I want to note that your reasoning in response to Pedro's opposition of your bureaucratship is excellent, and gets to the heart of the matter that is "requests for adminship debates". User:Krator (t c) 13:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB Comment

Really necessary? [4]. I like you a lot mate, read my inital response at your RfB. I remember interacting with Proto in my early days of WP and being glad and impressed. That comment smacks of "well, not going to make it so stuff the politeness" given the edit summary. I'm sorry if I irritated you but you didn't need to do that. Pedro :  Chat  00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:RfB

Thanks for answering my questions. I was really getting tired of the 50th, "would you promote at 72.384%" and had asked similar questions before of the current crats, without getting a widespread answer. That you gave the right answer of RfC (when it wasn't obvious from my phrasing), has given me that little extra boost of confidence that I'll be switching to support. MBisanz ^talk 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Experiment

WP:RFA - WP:RFB - WP:RFC - WP:RFD - WP:RFE - WP:RFF - WP:RFG - WP:RFH - WP:RFI - WP:RFJ - WP:RFK - WP:RFL - WP:RFM - WP:RFN - WP:RFO - WP:RFP - WP:RFQ - WP:RFR - WP:RFS - WP:RFT - WP:RFU - WP:RFV - WP:RFW - WP:RFX - WP:RFY - WP:RFZ Neıl ☎ 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

zomg too many RF- acronyms. Neıl ☎ 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to poach here, (still have you watchlisted from my prior question.} But I think your list is quite hilarious and very revealing. I think WP:RFN should be created as Request for Nothing. Although probably a tad pointy, it would strike me as exquisitely ironic, it would certainly result in at least 2 bans, 6 RfCs, two Arb cases, and 9 re-rfa's and lots of hurt feelings. And it would be very fun to shop around to get high levels of participation. Cheers, sorry 'bout your RFB as it sits. I for one think you'd do great. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFNEIL. Redlink. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Solutions?

WP:RFG - Requests for Gaming

WP:RFH - Requests for help (redirect to WP:Help desk)

WP:RFJ - Requests For Justice (maybe should be Demands for Justice, though)

WP:RFK - Requests for Karmic Intervention

WP:RFL - Requests for lawyering, Requests for lulz (careful)

WP:RFN - Requests for nothing, Requests for Neil (you post and I come a-running)

WP:RFQ - Replies for questions (redirect to WP:FAQ?)

WP:RFY - Requests for you (nice personal touch)

WP:RFZ - Requests for Zilch (redirect to Requests for Nothing?)

I like the idea of Requests for Justice. Neıl ☎ 16:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Buccaneer clean-up

Hey Neil. Got a quick question for you. Buccaneer has been tagged for clean up since last February. I worked on it a bit a while back and then asked about it on it's talk page and I think on the Project's too. I was just wondering if you could glance at it and see if it still needs the clean-up tag. Here is a link comparing the current version and the version when it was first tagged. Thanks! And also as a side note, on your user page, none of the tabs work (i.e. Talk, View Source, History, etc), but they work for me on other pages. Not sure why your's is different. If I type in the URL I can access those pages though. Just a little heads-up. Deflagro ^C/_T 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User conduct RfC on JzG

A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

re Locke Cole

Thanks for your request on my talkpage. If he were to remove the comments I feel it would show good faith in commencing some dialogue as regards his attitude, and as such I would be happy for the block to be lifted under those circumstances. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my previous non-response to Locke Cole (he wasn't changing from his position which lead to the block, so I had no reason to change my action). If you wish to continue the dialogue then please do. My offer to end the block as soon as there is progress remains. I'm now going off-line for a spell, so do (or not) as you see fit. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)