User talk:Fish and karate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page.

New to Wikipedia? - hello! See Wikipedia:Welcome and Wikipedia:Help for useful advice to get you started. If that doesn't help you, then by all means 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.

edward low[edit]

Hey buddy, why did you delete my contribution in Edward Low? --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, but according to who? who says what is an improvement and what not? it's your opinion against mine, and I saw a low of wikipedia's articles about pirates with the same kind of reference in pop culture, so I don't see why in Edward Low could not be. greetings--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fiora Contino[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Fiora Contino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fiora Contino[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 18 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fiora Contino, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Peter G. Davis wrote after a performance of Risurrezione that Fiora Contino (pictured) "may be the last conductor on earth with the music of Alfano and his generation in her bloodstream"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fiora Contino. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fiora Contino), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


courage and images

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Shoe polish, Edward Low, Mr. Lady Records and Fiora Contino, for the courage to explore unknown operatic territory, for images of nature such as a baby dragon, - Neil, repeating (23 March 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers fish&karate 09:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]


Funny you delete my article because i said that Japan is not Great power, it's very not gentle. Come on try to be objective. Orangdepok1 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t know what article you’re referring to, could you let me know the name and I can take another look. fish&karate 05:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for adding Iran to the On This Day section. :) Nusent 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. fish&karate 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).


Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Danica Patrick[edit]

Not sure why you reported this to WP:ANEW as it's set up to handle users, not articles. I've semi-protected the page - also not sure why you just didn't do that. Checkusers won't connect IPs to registered editors. --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't semi protect because protection isn't for resolving content disputes, and semi protection won't stop the edit warring anyway. fish&karate 10:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protection stops the socking to continue the edit war that you suspected was happening. It also forces IPs to use the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 13:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

Ran Neu-Ner Speed Deletion[edit]

How may I get this deleted page moved into my draft space? I was not finished editing it to add better references and for notability on Wikipedia.

RJ Thomas 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) talk

Yes, of course - please see Draft:Ran Neu-Ner, which I've restored for you. fish&karate 10:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for notability[edit]

Hi Fish and Karate, I made the article "Motty Steinmetz" a few days ago, being new to Wikipedia I didn't know all the rules about notability ,so it got deleted.I then researched all the notability criteria and made sure my article complied with it. I thought then it was suitable so put it up again. It obviouly did not meet the criteria so you took it down. What am I doing wrong and how can I prove notability.Would it be possible for you to have a look at the draft to tell me what edits I need or what is wrong with the sources. Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Adam Bernstein

Hi Adam. I've replied on your talk page. Regards, fish&karate 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see thatAdam Bernstein (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've had another go at writing this article. I've replaced all the sources with ones from reputable publications(I've explained the publications in the talk section) is this more suitable for an article? Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. I wasn't finished drafting the page before you deleted it. I was going to add references for notability shortly. Can you let me know?MikeGolin (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mike, see your talk page. fish&karate 10:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


This was an unfortunate raising of the stakes. If I did it as an AE action, and you undid it, that would greatly endanger your future editing powers. --John (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Threats? Really? Just because you say something is to do with an Arbcom sanction doesn’t make it so. fish&karate 20:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to increase protection[edit]

Hello, I would like to request that the protection on the article Mark Sifneos be elevated to full protection with the same expiration date as the current semi-protection. The semi-protection has not stopped a number of auto-confirmed users from adding blatantly false, uncited information to the page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kuyabribri: - no problem, I have increased it to extended confirmation protection, which should stop the vandalism without resorting to full protection. fish&karate 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought full might be a bit extreme, and I forgot about ECP. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

Magic word[edit]

Just to explain, you hadn't closed it at the point I edited the subsection, since you closed the entire thread and I was only editing the subsection, there wasn't an edit conflict, but it does appear as if I edited a closed discussion now. It doesn't make any impact on the result, but I will drop a quick explanation on my !vote Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for the courtesy note, it's appreciated. No worries. Fish+Karate 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm more annoyed I missed the entire discussion tbh given I have extensively commented elsewhere (at the state of WD for example) and only noticed it from Fram's closure request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


Wow, I've never seen anything like that! Really needed a good karate chop. I will watch for similar problems on other articles. Thanks for the good work. Regards, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's loads of articles like that. You come across them from time to time. Often they're done in good faith but forget that this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a proxy for an institution's or company's website; we we don't need to dump every last bit of trivia onto the article. But thanks for the kind words! Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Just dropping by to say hi. It's nice to see another old-timer (hope you don't mind me using this term) coming back after a long break and finding joy in editing again. I came back to editing actively last July after allegedly 10 years of absence (ha) and I've been confronted with worse labels I think (after doing some administrative works); IMO I think the atmosphere in Wikipedia these days are far more toxic than in the past. Alex Shih (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Alex Shih:, I think you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, we persevere :) Fish+Karate 08:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Useful idiot[edit]

Hi Neil, would you be able to clarify your closure of the RfC on that page? My question was:

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?

Your closing statement was:

the consensus appears to be pretty clear that while the OED is usually a reliable source for etymology and the like, in this instance there are sufficient concerns that if it is referenced within this article, it should be specifically attributed to the OED and it should be noted that other sources differ in their opinions.

I then added in a reference to the OED with what I thought was appropriate wording. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) then removed it with the comment, "RfC closing does not tell it must be used on the page. It tells: "IF it is referenced within this article" - I do not think it should be used/referenced at all - as explained on talk page.". He is correct in that the closing statement does use the word "if". Therefore, the closing statement does not address the question I asked, and the question editors were answering. I don't have a problem with what you concluded, and I don't think anyone else does, but if taken literally, it doesn't answer the question. (By the way, the article has always acknowledged that people attribute the phrase to Lenin and it always will.) We have had a long-running dispute about this at the talk page, which is why I started the RfC. It would be good to have a clear answer either way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Upland:. Apologies for the fuzzy wording in my close. I did see the consensus as being to include the phrase, but specifically attributed to the OED and with the caveats discussed. I will note this on Talk:Useful idiot. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fish+Karate 08:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your very prompt reply.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how you can guarantee that the article "always will" state that it's widely attributed to Lenin. There were several editors obstinately edit warring to remove that, and although some are now banned, I don't think we should mandate what must be used, but only how to properly attribute and contextualize it if, in the future course of the article's improved versions, it is included. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @SPECIFICO:. I don't think I said that - I think I said the consensus was that, right now, the article should include it. Consensus can change, new sources can become available, please don't think that I'm trying to decree that it Will And Must Be In The Article From Now Unto Forever. Fish+Karate 15:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't mean to say you were implying that. I meant to say that @Jack Upland: said he was confident this will always be in the article but that recent history suggests it will be relitigated over and over. Anyway, we'll see what develops. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Closer Award[edit]

Door closer 20170214.jpg
Slakr's Closer Award

Since you spend so much time closing long-open discussions, you are hereby awarded something to help you close other things that might be otherwise left open in the meantime.

Admittedly, you might now need to get one of those automatic cat flaps to let the good ones in and/or keep the bad ones out, but I think that probably requires spending a bunch of time on WP:ANI, doing hard time as an arbitrator, and other hells. :P

Keep up the great work, and cheers. =)

--slakrtalk / 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Blimey. Thanks @Slakr:, that’s very much appreciated. Cheers! Fish+Karate 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Unite the Right rally#RfC: Should the article include mention of Trump/Pence signs?[edit]

Was a pleasure to read. I do love a close that goes into both the !vote counts and explicitly weighs the merits of the arguments. Closes that like should be more common. (I bet you thought I was going to complain about it when you saw the title of this section, didn't you? Face-smile.svg) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, but then I saw I closed it in the way you !voted ... Fish+Karate 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there's that, too, heh. I just really liked the way you spelled out your thought process and judgements about the arguments. I try not to get too vested in the results of RfCs on political pages, so I'd have probably liked it just as much had you not gone the way of my !vote. It really caught me off guard (in a good way), as I'm used to seeing summaries like "no consensus here" or "consensus is such-and-such" or just commentary on the !vote count. You did a really good job there and deserve some praise for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it’s appreciated. Fish+Karate 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Rob Schrab protection[edit]

In the protection log, you said in the reason you intented to semi-protect it for one week, but you actually gave the article indefinite semi-protection. — MRD2014 Talk 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! Corrected. Thank you for spotting that, and for letting me know. Cheers @MRD2014:! Fish+Karate 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Heat-not-burn tobacco product RFC[edit]

About an hour after you closed the RFC at Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#RfC about rolling back before socks edited the page, the user who opened it has reverted your rollback and opened a brand new RFC to try and get the exact result they wanted. What are your thoughts on this behaviour? IffyChat -- 14:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iffy: - what a strange thing to do, particularly as the user got the outcome he asked for. I've messaged them on their talk page. Fish+Karate 14:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Emperor of Ocean Park[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 28 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Emperor of Ocean Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter received one of the largest-ever advances from Knopf to secure the rights to publish his debut novel The Emperor of Ocean Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Emperor of Ocean Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Emperor of Ocean Park), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).


Administrator changes

added Lourdesdagger
removed AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
dagger Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.



  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I am grateful for your kind supportive post at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal and even more so for your second post. Those posts are much appreciated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: - of course, I hope you can take on the advice everyone gave, and don't have any problems. Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, many thanks for being so thoughtful and considerate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I... Umm... Hmm...[edit]

Regarding your close... I... can't help but feel like there is somewhat less than maximum possible clarity there. You say that there is consensus for the original proposal, but the wording of the close itself is the alternative proposal. Both proposals are pretty explicitly for a five year time period, and saying it's simply mentioned may be... maybe low balling it a little bit? I get that consensus wasn't super clear regarding non-logged actions, (by a wide margin the most contentious point) but... Overall I suspect this particular wording you've gone with might be a little... anemic, and may wind up putting crats in a sticky situation before too long, or put us in a situation where we need to have an RfC to clarify our RfC.

I realize that the original proposal probably could have been worded with more clarity to start out with, and I'm not necessarily saying I could have personally done much better, just offering... my intuition for whatever it's worth (possibly very little). GMGtalk 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: - I do get your point. It wasn't the best wording (RFCs, ideally, should have a nice, clear, binary choice) but consensus was pretty clear that something should be in place. Bureaucrats already do have some discretion, and I think it's better to allow them to have some wriggle room to use their judgement on the rare edge cases rather than set absolute parameters; this was mentioned a few times in the RFC, such as by Beeblebrox, Bishonen, and SoWhy. Fish+Karate 09:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was mentioned a few times, but it didn't feel like it was a clear consensus for it, and no obviously policy based reason to weigh them more heavily. I was trying to catch you while you were still online, and maybe avoid the need for immediate and subsequent clarifying discussions. I don't disagree with the substance of the outcome. Honestly I'm fine either way. They both move things in the direction I would prefer. But I'm not confident someone affected with a strong cup of coffee and a penchant for lawyering couldn't challenge a policy not perfectly aligned with the close, which is not perfectly aligned with the discussion. GMGtalk 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

input on Draft:Richard Walter Thomas[edit]

There seems to be some questions that perhaps a few people could chime in on. I'm approaching senior members of various projects related to the subject as I can find to see if they might be interested in reviewing the draft and comments on the talk page. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Smkolins:, I have posted my thoughts on the talk page. I like the article a lot but it's perhaps a bit too long and laundry-listy (I know this is not a real word). Fish+Karate 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Great Acronym Experiment 2018[edit]

So we need a target for WP:RFG, WP:RFJ, WP:RFK, WP:RFL, WP:RFN, WP:RFQ, WP:RFY, and WP:RFZ. Nominative determinism ho! Fish+Karate 14:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

C. Ravichandran: Deleted page[edit]

Hi, I had created a biography article on malayalam author C. Ravichandran and it was speedily deleted per the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Ravichandran. But I doubt if the reasons cited in that discussion page was relevant for the newly created article. There was no promotional content and sources were cited to establish the notability of the subject. Here is one such source. There were also recent news links to the person winning reputed literature awards in Kerala. I wonder what mistake I did and what I should do next to restore this article. Can you guide me through the steps? JK (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jayakrishnan.ks100:. There was nothing in your recreated article, I'm afraid, that was substantially different or better than the version deleted previously. The additional source you provided is not really very much - it consists of six sentences about something C. Ravichandran once said. Please review Wikipedia's general guide to notability. In order for an article to exist on the subject, it would need to clearly and reliably demonstrate how it adheres to reliable sources and notability. At this point given the article has been created and deleted twice, I suggest you work on it in your own test environment, which you can find at User:Jayakrishnan.ks100/sandbox. I have had a look for what is available on this person, however, and I do not think that there is sufficient evidence available at this time that this person is sufficiently notable to have a dedicated Wikipedia article. Regards, Fish+Karate 12:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim consensus[edit]


Thanks for summing up the consensus on the Weinstein matter on Noah Oppenheim. During the discussion, one of the participants added a sentence about the matter back into the article (another editor had deleted all of the proposed language), rather than wait for the consensus.

  • "Oppenheim was criticized for NBC News not using the Ronan Farrow report on Harvey Weinstein."

He took the criticism part of the passage being discussed in the RfC and added it to the article. As decided, it's COATRACK, but also worse for NPOV than before this RfC discussion began because it doesn't have the NBC explanation that the story was not ready for publication because it had no named sources.

As I disclose on the Talk page, I have a COI as a paid consultant to NBC, so I cannot make changes to the article. Can you take a look and make any needed change? I think the sentence should just be deleted as per the consensus.

By the way, there is a very extensive passage about this matter now in the NBC News article -- I made sure it was fairly discussed and a consensus reached. Another editor added the passage. NBC News#1995 onwards


Ed BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278



@BC1278: Hi Ed. I have removed the sentence in question as per the RFC consensus. Cheers, Fish+Karate 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: I just noticed you also inadvertently dropped the citations, which were the only sources being used to support the preceding statements, unrelated to Weinstein. I know this is minor housekeeping, and normally I'd just restore the citations myself, but this matter has also been contentious, so I don't think I should touch this article at all. Best BC1278 (talk)BC1278