User talk:Fish and karate

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page. Make sure you sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

New to Wikipedia? - hello! See Wikipedia:Welcome, Wikipedia:Help, and Wikipedia:My first article for useful advice to get you started. If those don't help you, then by all means please do come back and ask me your question(s).

Can't edit my talk page archives? If there is anything (chiefly privacy stuff) you would like removing or amending, let me know below or by email. If you are unsure whether you want everyone seeing your message, don't post it here - again, email me.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church

If you have some time for that...A comparison with the respective article in Britannica regarding structure and references wouldn't hurt. What references do they rely on? What kind of structure do they prefer compared to the WP article? Squash Racket (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to the FAC. The Roman Catholicism entry on Britannica is one of their very best pieces of work, and must have taken an expert years to compile, so don't feel the Wikipedia article has to be as good as the EB one! Neıl 龱 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that these articles are not comparable, but if another dispute emerges over references for specific parts of the article, it may still be useful. Squash Racket (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board elections policy

How Neil will be deciding his votes in the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. Make sure you vote!!!:

Nobody under 25 (maturity is a MUST)
No life-long students (must be working or have worked)
Preferably experience in a senior management role
Good English (sorry, but this is vital)

Current preferred candidates, based on record and responses (no particular order):

Gregory Kohs, Samuel Klein, Harel Cain, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, Ray Saintonge, Steve Smith. Would be happy with any of these guys serving on the board.

Current least preferred candidates, based on record and responses:

Ad Huikeshoven/Ting Chen (both exhibit poor English), Dan Rosenthal (no real experience, bad answers), Kurt Weber (seems like a joke), MBisanz (too young, grossly exaggerated experience), Paul Williams/Craig Spurrier (both far too young), Ryan Postlethwaite (too young, no experience, bad answers). Would not want to see any of these guys serving on the board.

If you read this, don't worry about who I choose (this is really for my own benefit) - make your own mind up, but please go and vote. Neıl 龱 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krause 450

I'm not gonna second-guess you (WP:AGF and all that); but I have grim suspicions you may regret unblocking him. See my remarks on his talk page for further explication. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re...

...your indef block of User:Jpmdhd. She has been in touch with me via email (I deleted another Clayton Sleep Institute (CSI)-related article of theirs today) for advice on how to avoid it happening again. She assures me that she and User:Mhf95 are in fact two different people, who collaborated on the article. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they both work in the same place - no prizes for guessing where - but I think perhaps there may be grounds to reconsider your indefblock? It seems to me that it's more a case of inexperience than malice; the second account was only used once, to post a talk page question asking for advice, and I don't believe sockpuppetry is involved. There may still be various issues with COI and the like, but the editors at least seem willing to listen and learn... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neil, AGF it is! I don't know whether we'll see these editors again, and I've watchlisted the appropriate pages, so if there's any concerns I'll block them myself if I have to. However, thanks to their inexperience they did get bitten pretty hard (two blocks, one AfD and one speedy)... and all due to a drive-by tagging. Sometimes I wonder how any newbies get past their first day :P EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kate and Gin

I have nominated Kate and Gin, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate and Gin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same inclination

But I've been burnt in the past for speedy deleting hoaxes as... hoaxes. The bureaucracy has forced me to be bureaucratic in cases where I know the correct line of action is blocking and deleting but the line of action required has to go round about to achieve the same result. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wary for, as I just discovered, years: Look at the history of Mongolian Jesus. This has always stuck in my mind as the reason to tip toe around hoaxes. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question ?

Pure vandals get 4 chances (if not more) before any action is taken. They get warnings on their talk page, they finally they get disciplined. I am a vandal fighter. I have an over 18000 edits since April and I get no warning what so ever. A user puts profanity on my talk page, I report him and you remove access to Huggle for a week. The user made no attempt to show his citation, he jumps on my talk page with this [[1]] and I get punished. I ask once again for you to reverse your decision regarding Huggle. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanadianLinuxUser

Neil: you just drove away one of our best vandal-fighters. CanadianLinuxUser was easily twice as fast as I am, and when we were both on huggle, I never saw him make any reverts that I wouldn't have made. I fought vandals for two months more than he did and look at where he is on the list of contributers to AIV. It is impossible make that many reports to AIV without nearly 100% being accurate. If they weren't accurate, the user would be blocked for disruption.

Why did you remove huggle from him for a week for that? 24 or 31 hours, maybe, but a week? You may not fight vandals a lot, but I see stuff like that every time I'm on, and 99.999% of the time, it turns out to be false. Removing huggle from him for a week because of that seems to be more than a little vindicative on your part, but I may be reading into your comment a tone that was not intended.

I'm sorry, but you really need to count your losses before you act. RickK left after someone blocked him for "breaking the 3RR rule" when he was actually reverting a vandal. Seriously, you do not know how good CLU was. As I said before, CLU was one of the best vandal-fighters I have ever seen. His absence will create a massive hole that all the rest of us rank-and-file people will have to fill. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous people have left messages on CLU's talk page encouraging him to stick around. I think it would be wise for you to do the same. His user page says he's retired. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to happen. I understand why you did what you did, and I endorse it, but he could use some coaching, not just "Bye." BradV 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, seriously, why did you remove his huggle stuff with no warning? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap. I don't know if I'm right or wrong here. Sigh, I just don't want to see CLU leave. I'm at a total loss of what to do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep spamming your talk page. I just wanted to say that the more I look into this, the less sure I am that I was right. I apologize for any attacks I made, and I want you to know that I have utterly no idea what my proper response to this should have been, nor do I know for certain if I should have involved myself in this at all. *sigh* J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be a lot of people quitting in a huff lately after some sort of clash, followed by people pointing fingers and insisting that others change their behavior to end the sort of atmosphere that produces such resignations (ironically contributing, themselves, to an atmosphere of rancor that perhaps drives people away). *Dan T.* (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, I did the exact thing you said happens too often. I want to apologize to anyone who sees this for creating a hostile atmosphere. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

[2] What now? (If anything). Fainites ^barley 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* - it seems mediation is a bust. Carry on as you are and if problems continue, drop me a note. Neıl 龱 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. The only problem so far is that I removed the POV tags from the Attachment theory article but Kingsleys replaced them. They can't just stay there indefinitely if there's no effort being made at dispute resolution can they? Fainites ^barley 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Updates after AfD - Navneet Singh Khadian

This is in reference to my request on your archive page 25.

Respected Sir/Madam, you are aware that during AfD - Navneet Singh Khadian, you had deleted this article because there were 3 Delete Votes against 2 Keep votes, means there was margin of "One" vote in favour of deletion. This margin does not exist anymore.

I had previously mentioned that 2 out of three "Delete" voters had clearly shown POV/biased voting, i.e.: 1. User Talk:202.54.176.51 had clearly shown his hate towards the subject by requesting to mention him a terrorist or to delete it at all. 2. User:Vivin's using word Terrorism (POV) against Militancy (NPOV) while giving his delete vote.

Now there are two MAJOR updates

3. The third and the last Keep voter, i.e. User:Tomb of the Unknown Warrior has been indifinitely blocked by wikipedia afterwards, so kindly exclude his "Keep" vote from your decision.

4. A fourth User:Mightyunit who, created his user account on May 1st 2008, i.e. the starting day of this Afd discussion, did huge vandalism in this article by deleting several references/information to influence this AfD has also been tracked and indifinitely blocked by Wikipedia afterwards. My requests regarding this matter during this AfD are, 1, 2, 3, 4.

Kindly review your decision and Keep this article because of major updates mentioned above, where two wikipedia users have already been blocked AND because Wikipedia's has also Kept another similar article of chief of parallel militant organization, involved in same Khalistan movement, fighting for exactly same cause Singh6 01:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced, and would suggest Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neıl 龱 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work...

Y1 (tobacco) saved!

That article is coming along nicely... well done. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Jaydon

Hey, Neil I am uploading some magazine scans with Zachary Jaydon/Jaydon D. Paull's mantions, etc. I am wondering what the appropriate place to put these would be. Should I provide a link to the scans? The article is being written off as a hoax, but I think people are lazy in their assumptions. He works mainly in the Indie music market nowadays, and just because the information isn't a google click away doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is fake. Thank you for your help, and please understand that I am not trying to start an argument, just provide information to clarify things. Skyler Morgan (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]