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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Attachment theory

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

*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)

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)

Thanks for trying by the way. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It still says open! [3] Fainites ^barley 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nice work...

Y1 (tobacco) saved! That article is coming along nicely... well done. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. Oh and a PS: his scans may be real, but hes the 'manager/lawyer/writer/street team leader/pr junkie' of CTH...so...he gave all those imaginary figures and facts himself. But a...I think you knew that ;) already.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Spamblock

Hi; no, I don't mind you increasing the length of my block on that spammer. If you think a block of six months on an educational site is OK, then fair enough. You will have noted that I did leave a threat on the user's talk page of a much longer block if he came back, so I was not being wholly superficial. I was watching too, though will unwatch now. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've changed it to a softblock. Neıl 龱 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I read your statement that you "asked an ArbCom member to oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity." Which ArbCom member declined to do this due to the fact that "the information is already out there?" I consider that a shocking abdication of responsibility. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure that releasing their name publically would be allowed - check your email. Neıl 龱 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you have email disabled. I need to clarify my statment with "ex-", hold on. Neıl 龱 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There, it's clearer now. I emailed User:Oversight over this diff, and had a reply from an ex-ArbCom member refusing to oversight it as "the information is already out there". Neıl 龱 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would enable email this evening (US) for the purposes of this email. My policy is to be uncontactable, because "sunshine is the best disinfectant." However, since it's an ex-arb I don't care anymore. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - no need to enable your email, then. Neıl 龱 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil

I would take it as a personal favor if you did not discuss me on Wikipedia Review. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. No matter how politely couched, your request is rude. You have no right and no justification to suggest to me or anyone else what we can or cannot discuss off-Wiki. Neıl 龱 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DNAP

I dropped some sources and comments on User_talk:Neil/DNAP. Thatcher 19:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are teh awesome. Thanks Thatcher. Neıl 龱 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening

I am humbly requesting Rollback. I was accepted for "VandalFighter" but it doesn't work with firefox, and I do a lot of vandal work on articles like Tobacco, Skull and Bones, and other articles I watch. (see my user page for more articles I defend) I appreciate your time. Thank you. Beam 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Save Toby

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Save Toby. 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.

• It's done. Thanks for the help. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  I've commented on the DRV - seems fine to me, good work! Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now I need to face my Wikipedian nemesis - an image. One thing I completely do not understand is the image policy. What would be allowed? An image from the website? A news source that uses the website image? The cover of the book? The site logo? I'd like to get a picture or two up there, but I don't want those ugly image warning tags on my talk page. Any advice? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (It's just easier for you if I reply here)...I was specifically wondering about this image. At least 2 of the sources I have use it (implying some sort of permission or release for public use), and barring a use of the logo (would be undesirable) or a screenshot of the page (less so), would be the best way to convey the image. I know the policy doesn't allow non-free images of persons...but is Toby a person? --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The images are uploaded. I'm pretty sure the rationale for one of them is good, not so sure about the other. Check them for me, please? Also, I'm not sure I have them put on the page optimally...--UsaSatsui (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes

I put 2 & 2 together. Sometimes I get the right answer, sometimes I don't :) Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Buh? Neıl 龱 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mail :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Assuming the AFD goes the way it looks, what's to be done with TragedyStriker? Indef block? That's my preference. It's pretty obvious to me that this goes beyond resume inflation into conscious fraud.
Kww (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe

Thanks for the typo fix, sure it was OK, much appreciated in fact. *blushes* delldot talk 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlock my Userpage Please

You blocked me a while back. I have since been unblocked but my userpage is still protected. Can you please unprotect it for me?

Metsguy234 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep,  Done Neıl 龱 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory mediation

Hiya Neil. I commented at WP:AN. I personally would like to have seen a topic ban but most supported the block and i don't see any problem with it. The topic ban was more preference. Its a shame that this had to happen though. I like to see ever mediation successful but it seems this one just wasnt meant to happen. I look forward to prehaps working with you on another mediation in future :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving all this extensive time and attention. Fainites ^barley 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both - it was unfortunate; I would have preferred a successful mediation, but it had become pretty apparent Kingsley had no interest in engaging in it, rather using it as a delaying tactic. When no other options are available, a ban became the only option, as there seems to be no other way of addressing his editing behaviour. Remember that indefinite does not mean permanent, and should he agree to work more constructively with others, this block can be revisited. Seddon, I agree - who knows what the future will hold :) One last point - I believe a topic ban, given Kingsley's narrow band of interest, would have had the same effect and end result as a general ban. Neıl 龱 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say I would have been surprised if he'd mediated as most of his earlier behaviour was filibustering - but I had a moment of real hope there when he actually produced a few sources for Slakr's table. I thought we were off and away at that point! But it wasn't to be. Fainites ^barley 07:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Y1 (tobacco), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year

Hi Neil. With the year almost up, we're making an effort to reduce the number of listings at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. You've been a big help in the past with that project page and I am hoping that you can knock out a few to contribute to the effort. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Year almost up?! :P Neıl 龱 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lizzie Borden

Hi. I noted your comment regarding the lumping of quotes into footnotes at the AN/I board and wanted to let you know there is a RfC on the Borden talk page at this time regarding this and some other issues. I thought you might want to lend your opinion, as it seems we are garnering a consensus, for this article at least, on the use of the quotes. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

This struck me as rather inflammatory. I know what it's like when reading opposes one disagrees with, but upsetting a bunch of editors isn't going to help Avruch, especially if his RfA itself becomes a drama scene. I suggest you tone it down... --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That was toned down from what I originally wrote. I stand by the comment, but have toned it down some more. Neıl 龱 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I was originally going to post it at 200px, but thought that might just be overkill, :-) Thanks for the amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Neıl 龱 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic turkey article

Can you please check your facts before you make changes or deletions? Just because you think something is garbage, or you prefer "pets" to "companion animals" doesn't mean that the sources you are quoting support this, or that you are correct. Arbitrary changes to support your POV are simply POV and not acceptable. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference you give {[4]) does not use the phrase "companion animals" for turkeys at any point. Note that Companion animal redirects to Pet. Neıl 龱 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Our turkey adoption process resembles those of companion animal shelters that match cats and dogs with caring and responsible adopters," said Leanne Cronquist, Farm Sanctuary's California shelter manager. "We carefully screen all our applicants and ensure they are committed to providing lifelong sanctuary for their new companions. After all, turkeys are bright, social and sensitive animals who-like cats and dogs-deserve the very best in life." {http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/2007/pr_turkey_express_CA.html} ph#2

It sounds to me that if people are providing their turkey companions sanctuary, that a pet turkey is refered to as a companion. The line in the article clearly says that Farm Sanctuary says...and Farm Sanctuary says companion animal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's minor enough that it can stay in the article. I did remove some of the other false statements in the section that were supposedly in the reference. Neıl 龱 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I saw the other words you took out, and you're right about those, they aren't referenced and even if they were they would be opinion. Whoever first put that info in used those words. Sorry if I was snarky. I see lots of things I don't agree with on Wiki, but a lot of the time, when I check the reference or google the item, the Wiki stuff is correct - as wrong as it sounds to me! Bob98133 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Miracle of Geneva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Miracle of Geneva. 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. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your participation in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Umpirer...

...is basically a really bad pun on "Roman Emperor". You're watching for that article about Romanians and "throwing it out of the game" if it shows up again. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

note for u

there is a note for you here [5]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

KAL 007: Inside the Cockpit...

...was also nominated for deletion here but no followup action was taken. Can you have a look at it? Guycalledryan (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)