User talk:Nehwyn

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




Hello, Nehwyn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Some P. Erson 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remove CSD from DMP Digital Music Products[edit]

This is not an advertisement and I have no relation to the company. DMP is highly notable for being a pioneering recording label in the area of digital recording, and has been for more than 20 years.

Retrieved from ""

I am just beginning this piece, and it should not be a CSD. Please remove ASAP. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvccs (talkcontribs)

Do you even know ANYTHING about this? Tvccs 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags for companies[edit]

Hi -- thanks for your work identifying articles for deletion. Please note that companies are generally not subject to speedy deletion, but should be given a prod tag instead. Also, a couple of the companies you tagged seemed to be notable under WP:CORP, such as Consilient (backed by verifiable sources) and West 49 Inc. (listed on a major stock exchange). If an article seems like an advertisement but the company is notable, edit the article rather than marking it for deletion. Thanks! NawlinWiki 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. ju66l3r 06:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. Nehwyn 07:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I would say that your efforts to delete articles are a bit over-zealous especially for a starter. Please slow down. --Shuki 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect, I have been used speedy too much; I will use fewer db and more prod and afd tags. Thanks! Nehwyn 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest using WP a bit longer before joining any cleanup crews. Try creating some articles and then you'll know what it feels like when a few hours of sincere work are threatened because some editor merely slapped on a delete tag of any kind. --Shuki 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, but I have not joined any cleanup crew. I have also created articles, but none of them were nonsense, advertisment, or bio, and consequently none of them got deleted. I still think that kind of articles should be removed, no matter the "few hours of sincere work" put into them. Nehwyn 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A year and three months later you don't seemed to have learned the lesson. You just "slapped a delete tag" on an article that was exactly twenty-one minutes old, before it had a chance to "include references", etc. (and with nothing to suggest this could possibly be "advertisement"). "Over-zealous" is rather an understatement. TheScotch (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no lesson to be learned here. You seem to confuse "no references" with "no claim to notability". The first might be a reason for prod or AfD, both of which allow time for referenencing, but the second is definitely a speedy criterion. I'm actually more convinced of this than a year ago. (And by the way, which speedied company article are you referring to?) --Nehwyn (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "There's no lesson to be learned here.":

Which remark rather proves my point. Did you actually read any of the above comments by various other editors?

Re: "You seem to confuse 'no references" with "no claim to notability'.:

As I remember it, the tag complained about "references".

Re: "The first might be a reason for prod or AfD, both of which allow time for referenencing, but the second is definitely a speedy criterion.":

Au contraire, it also takes time (usually more than twenty-one minutes, for example) to establish "notability". It takes time to put anything at all substantial into an article.

Re: "which speedied company article are you referring to?":

Do you squash so many articles with a two-hour period that you can't even remember them? TheScotch (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did read their comments, and expressed my disagreement in my reply to them. An article that contains no claim to notability is eligible for speedy deletion, and I'm just as convinced of this now as I was a year ago. As for your other remarks, I am of course willing to discuss any speedied article of mine that you might have disagreed with, but please specify which one, so I can reply appropriately. Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Hai qualche notizia da aggiungere? Io ho la raccolta Panini delle sue storie, con introduzione, cronologia, etc, ma è seppellita dietro un cumulo di altri libri e non ce la faccio a trovarla. Ciao e grazie!--Attilios 09:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Invero non sapevo che la Panini avesse fatto una raccolta di Dago... Non l'Eura? Nehwyn 09:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Defending non-ad entry[edit]

I appreciate your watchdog efforts to prevent overcommercialization of Wikipedia. However, I believe you may be a bit overzealous in the creation of my latest entry. I have no reason to advertise Saizen. I don't use the product and have no contact or relationship with the manufacturer. Please see its discussion page for a further explanation. I have removed your deletion request tag. If I need to modify the entry to appease your concerns, please let me know.--SidP 10:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The crimes of the occupants in Vojvodina, 1941-1944[edit]

Content moved into article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehwyn (talkcontribs)

Hayward Medical[edit]

Feel free to give it the advert tag. Thanks, NawlinWiki 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Collection (Samantha Mumba album)[edit]

Whether or not you agree with the creation of this page, I would ask you to take a read of WP:CSD before nominating any more articles for speedy deletion. Specifically look at "Non-criteria" where it explicity states that, the following, is not criteria for speedy deletion:~

Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" are not part of the speedy deletion criteria. However, these reasons can be given at AfD nominations

Thanks - Рэдхот 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Should be changed to prod. Nehwyn 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Private collection[edit]

I have removed the prod from this article. Please see its talk page for an explanation as to why I did so. Thank you. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had written the text before creating the article on wikipedia, then! Still, if you are going to work on page, just put the wip tag in it. In this case, I'll do that for you. Nehwyn 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello, my name's Constance and I just made a Wikpedia for this community. My article can be found here. I noticed that you are a patroller of new articles and you set it as a Website Advert. I don't know what that means but I was wondering what's somet things I can improve on so that my article isn't removed. I don't want it removed by any means and I'll change whatever you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstanceAvixen (talkcontribs)

Thanks for contacting me! A "website advert" is an article that just aims to spread the word about a website... which is what I think your article aims to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; there cannot be an entry for each and every website out there. Sorry! You may, however, contest the deletion propasal on its debate page. Nehwyn 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand completely. I read and read and it seems I still can't seem to get things right sometimes. Thank you very much, I will talk to you in the deletion proposal now. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstanceAvixen (talkcontribs)
No biggie. We're all here to make Wikipedia better! :) Nehwyn 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Senuti article...[edit]

Is the Senuti article better now that I have eliminated the last sentence about the downloading or is the whole article flawed? Just asking on your opinion... Sr13 09:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article itself... it is the product it advertises. You should try and demonstrate that it meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEB. Nehwyn 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm new here at Wikipedia and your explanation is a little cloudy...Should I delink the references website? Sr13 09:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that, if anything, you should add more to the page. Anything that proves that the software meets the WP:WEB criteria. Nehwyn 09:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Still classified under the deletion policy? Guess so.Sr13 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not. Let's see how the debate goes! --Nehwyn 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There hasn't been much progress made in the last three days. Is anyone interested in responding? Sr13 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say you will agree the current response are quite enough! :) --Nehwyn 08:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Conquest[edit]

I lost major contributions due to editing conflict. Please post your tags after I have finished rather than when changes are being made. User:Raja Lon Flattery 12:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about content loss, Raja Lon Flattery, but if you do not want others to edit a page you're working on, you should place the wip tag in it (and remove it after you're done). If you don't, the page is considered ready for all to see and edit. --Nehwyn 12:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding warning on User_talk:Raja_Lon_Flattery[edit]

The warning was issued when there was already no need for it, being irrelevant and unwarranted. For evidence you might wanna check the discussion at the mentioned link. Raja Lon Flattery 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have checked it out, but that discussion does not involve me. Whatever and wherever the discussion is, what is important is that you cannot remove warnings directed at you from your talk page under current Wikipedia regulations. You may removethe rest of the conversation, provided an exact copy is archived somewhere else (as on the other user's talk page), but if a warning is issued, it must stay there. --Nehwyn 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
even it is irrelevant? suppose I issue a tes4 on your page when there is no need for it. Is it supposed to stay here?. Raja Lon Flattery 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot be the judge of your own warnings. If you feel one is unjustified, take the matter to an admin. Nehwyn 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, I have asked an admin to check this out. Raja Lon Flattery 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! But while you wait for him/her do to resolve the problem, you should restore the warning, really. If an admin sees that you have deleted it, he/she is probably going to issue a second one for violating policy. --Nehwyn 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
See, they did give you a second one... and you removed that one as well. You can't see where this may lead? --Nehwyn 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. I archived it here. Raja Lon Flattery 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, but you should know that, under current policies, if you archive part of a talk page, you are under obligation to provide a link to the archive from your main talk page (see [[1]] for suggestions on how do to that). In your case, there is no link! --Nehwyn 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of subject[edit]

I do not understand why my post on Rafiqul Islam Bhuiyan and Jusmeet Virmani was deleted, it was purely biographical, relevant, 100% true and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sms45 (talkcontribs)

Hello, and thanks for writing! Read the pink deletion boxes, the reason for deletion of each page is stated within them. Do not be discouraged; write about other subjects, and I am sure your contributions will be better appreciated. Also... please heed the warnings on your talk page: you were warned not to repost the same article again, yet you did six times! --Nehwyn 18:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of subject[edit]

I do not understand why my post on Rafiqul Islam Bhuiyan and Jusmeet Virmani was deleted, it was purely biographical, relevant, 100% true and verifiable. Just to add, the articles are biographical, and every encyclopedia has biographical articles, online, text based, paid or free. it feels that wiki is promoting issue based content--commentaries for that the newspaper editorials are best :) -Sms45

See reply above. --Nehwyn 08:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Community (subnational entity)
Inertial frame of reference
Matrix of subnational entities
Great Cornard Upper School
Council (subnational entity)
Autonomous city
Otto Binder
Gamča (school)
Holistic health
ITT Technical Institute
Drop (liquid)
Medium (spirituality)
Political division
Jason Becker
National capital territory
Black Widows
Autonomous district
Kerr metric
University of Science & Technology of China
Add Sources
Suspension (school punishment)
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Manila Philharmonic Orchestra
MIT Enterprise Forum
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Friedmann equations

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What it means?[edit]

"However, science has found no definite prove of a Creator for them." I do not get its meaning? What you are trying to say there? --- ابراهيم 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified it using the creationism term instead. --Nehwyn 08:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

Thanks for the policy reminder and your good work. Kukini 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome... I see you're not inactive either. :) --Nehwyn 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you f*** with my page?[edit]

Whats up with my page and why did you make it a "user" formatted page re-direct. I added information that was factual and free to be posted with an image that I have rights to post. I am not here to do some Blatent self promotion but i wanted to add some information to contribute to wiki and links to my name. I think I have every right to do so. so why fuck with my page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbernardjones (talkcontribs)

Hello Bernard, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for contributing with your autobiography, but please keep in mind that biographical articles have to meet the WP:BIO criteria before they can be included in Wikipedia, otherwise they will be deleted. To avoid this fate for your autobiography, since you had no User page, I "userfied" the article (your "User" page, in Wikipedia, is the page used to talk about yourself... the proper place for an autobiography, if you want to publish one). Again, thanks for deciding to start contributing to Wikipedia. We'll be looking forward your future edits! :) --Nehwyn 08:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

About Pieces a Conviction[edit]

What do you think of my additions to Pieces a Conviction so far? Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 08:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

I'd say so far so good. :) --Nehwyn 08:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, working on finding more sourced citations, it'd go faster if I knew more French, that's for sure...Yours, Smeelgova 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
It's okay, take your time. Just make sure there's some text in a page when you create it, otherwise it will be marked for deletion before you get the chance to add anything, and that would be a pity. --Nehwyn 08:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, well thanks again for teaching me about all this stuff. Yours, Smeelgova 08:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

About HeirChex[edit]

Greetings Nehwyn, I am not sure why my article was marked by you as an advertisement. I have seen articles all over wikipedia that read even less factual than mine. It is a history of a company. I am new to wikipedia and am confused by the "tags" put in my article. Can you help me to rewrite it so that it achieves wikipedia standards? The article is here. Thank you Aarontm 11:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. The main problem with your article is that the company you describe does not seem to meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP. I've opened a debate page in order to discuss that and to reach a consensus on the possibility of either keeping or removing the article (click on the link on the notice at the top of the article). Please, don't let that discourage you from contributing in other ways, even in the case the community decides to remove the article. In the meantime, you can still edit it to improve it; I'd suggest including anything that proves the company you describe meets the above-mentioned criteria. If you have any other questions about the article, please feel free to use either the article talk page, or the debate page. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. --Nehwyn 12:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

EAC Power stations merge.[edit]

Hi, Nehwyn. I disagree with your proposal to merge Dekelia Power Station (and the others) with the Electricity_Authority_of_Cyprus article (also see article discussion). If anything I think a new category should be made here [2] for Power stations in Cyprus. However, i have no idea how to do that! StephP 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Point taken. :) --Nehwyn 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


im too cool to be banned from editing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikedunks (talkcontribs)

Hello there. If you stop vandalising pages, I'm sure you won't be banned! :) --Nehwyn 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1977 in Pakistan[edit]

These yearly pages are stubs in the series of Timeline of Pakistani history. The yearly information will be added. Please avoid tagging these stubs. Siddiqui 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! I do know what these pages are, but they currently only consist of links elsewhere, without content of their own; that's a db criterion. A stub, on the other hand, may be very brief, but does have content. Still, thanks for contacting me. :) --Nehwyn 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As a further notice, I should add: please do not remove db tags. Use the hangon tag instead, and let admins decide! :) --Nehwyn 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Snake scales[edit]

I see you've taken an interest in the snake scale articles that I've been working on. I understand that you are somewhat concerned about the creation of so many small articles dedicated to a myriad of specific scalation terms, but I see no better way to do this. What you are suggesting is that we instead create many, many redirects for these terms and point them all to the main Snake scales article. The result would be that, when a reader visits any one of several thousand snake articles (i.e. Vipera berus) an clicks on any of the scalation terms there, they would always be sent to the Snake scales article and be forced to hunt for a specific term there. What's more, if each term were to have an accompanying set of images, such as in Supralabial scales, the Snake scales articles would end up being huge! Therefore, I see no better way to do this than to create many smaller articles dedicated to the individual terms. Hope this clears things up! --Jwinius 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for writing. You do have a point, however there may be a third way: instead of redirecting to the Snake scales page, links could redirect to the specific section of the page where the nomenclature is explained. This way, the user would find a table with each adjective (e.g. supralabial, dorsal, etc) in the same screenshot. I'm not sure how big the illustrations would be, however, so your solution may still be better. Let's leave things as they are and see if anyone else has ideas about them. --Nehwyn 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
We could direct them to a certain section of the page, but there would still be problems. First, my goal is to supply images to illustrate each of the terms, as Supralabial scales. If we were to have all of those terms and images in one page, the article would still become too big. And you might still be hunting for the terms. Second, I doubt that many would bother to make such complicated redirects for every single scalation term in their snake articles, i.e. "[[Snake scales#Supralabial scales|supralabials]]" instead of simply "[[supralabials]]". You have to think of the editors too.
Finally, there aren't many people involved in this stuff. Basically, just me and AshLin. --Jwinius 15:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the complicated redirects... not really. Editors would just link to "dorsal scales", and it would be the dorsal scale page that redirects to the appropriate section of the Snake scales article, so that could work. You do have a point about the size of the article, though, and that may be the most important factor in the end.
Scalation articles like Ventral scales may be pretty small at the moment, but the idea is that images be added in due time. That's the hard part, though. Plus, for some scales I'd like to have multiple examples -- scale morphology often differs radically. For example, some arboreal species have keeled ventral scales, while in sea snakes they may be reduced in size or are totally absent! However, gathering suitable images was taking so long, that I decided to go on ahead and create the articles for some of the more important scales; I figured that any current lack of example images is outweighed by the need to have these articles and their definitions available as soon as possible.
You suggestion for the redirects is interesting, though. I guess what you mean is that, if a section of an articles has the same name as a redirect to it, any visitors who click on the redirect will be taken to that section of the page. Cool! --Jwinius 16:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, not sure we have the same thing in mind. I'll try and be clearer. You were worried that, if informations about scale nomenclature were in a section of the Snake scales article, editors would not use snake scales#nomenclature as a link to it when using, say, "vertebral scales" in the text of an article about a particular snake, while they would surely use the simpler alternative of having a separate vertebral scales page. I suggested that if you do create the vertebral scales page, but only as a redirect to snake scales#nomenclature, that difficulty would be overcome. (I still think the size thing is more important though). :) --Nehwyn 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I totally understand! I just hadn't heard about this particular feature of the redirect function before. However, for a central Snake scales article, this particular solution would not always work, as many scales have synonyms: i.e. lower-labials = sublabials = infralabials. You'd have to make them all redirect to the same section. Still, I think it's a cool solution, even if we won't be using it here. Anyway, regardless, I agree that size will end up being the determining factor in this case. --Jwinius 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice save![edit]

That Malaysian stub went from travel guide to article in one fell swoop. Way to go!

Thanks for smiling! :)
It was clearly spam for a touristic operator, but the location apparently does exist, so I thought to salvage the salvageable. :) --Nehwyn 08:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Jones (waste management)[edit]

Hi Nehwyn

I note you requested my article on Peter Jones (waste management) be speedily deleted. I am working on improving the Category:Waste management in wikipedia. I am not into promotion of this man in any way but I can assure you he is of notability in the UK waste management industry. He has had television appearances, he sits on government advisory bodies and is extremely well known in the industry. A Google search reveals 55,000 links to him and I have slimed down the search results to take into account his more common name []. --Alex 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for contacting me. I had checked your contributions before doing anything, so rest assured that I do realise you're not trying to promote anyone with your edits. (Actually, thanks for your contribution.) My main concern is with notability; is there anything you might add to the page to demonstrate it meets the WP:BIO criteria? --Nehwyn 13:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on it, I added a few extra references from Government and BBC but its no means a complete article. Alex 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


vandalized Ancient Rome again 2 minutes after you gave him a Last Warning ... (twice)--Invisifan 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that! I know he vandalised that page again, I watch it. The user has been reported to administration; just waiting for the block. --Nehwyn 14:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re [3][edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. – Chacor 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the discussion... it's something I've been pondering upon for a while, actually. :) --Nehwyn 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, I reverted maybe four of your {{PROD}}s to Singaporean malls (mostly with the underlying message "PROD is not {{cleanup}}"). Those I removed them off are probably notable enough and are just lacking sources. The others I've left alone until I can review them. (For clarity, I am from Singapore. And I don't think they all deserve articles, but some do.) – Chacor 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur that that some deserve an article - I have not prodded them all. I do know that prod and cleanup are differnt - I used prod because that's the one I intended to use. :) --Nehwyn 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Regarding the article Douglas Brenton, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "biographical article not asserting notability", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article does assert notability with the sentence "November 2005, he was a guest soloist at the Silver Medal Presentations (Royal Conservatory of Music, Halifax) for achieving the highest mark on his vocal exam throughout Atlantic Canada". If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. :) --Nehwyn 18:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Invest Sign on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Invest Sign. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. I would like to ask you for your opinion about Invest Sign software in deletion review page. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aferistas (talkcontribs)

Have a look back, there's been accusations of sockpuppetry or misintention. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for informing me, I will look into it. --Nehwyn 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Etruscan stub[edit]

The WP:SS team have jumped on my Template:Etruscan-stub atWikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BEtruscan-stub.7D.7D.2FCat:Etruscan_stubs. Could you give me a hand filling out Category:Etruscan stubs to make them think otherwise, or are all the Etruscan articles perfect already? :-) Please reply hereUser|Neddyseagoon 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to do the research needed to create new Etruscan pages at the moment, sorry... but I will try and see if existing ones fit the category. --Nehwyn 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

About Kendall Coffey[edit]

please do not put unnecessary tags or templates on articles. the article was already "wikified". UCF Cheerleader 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. "Wikify" does not just mean "put wikilinks into it", but if you feel the article is good as it is, then fair enough. Also, please do not remove category tags from article, leaving them uncategorised; this is especially true for stub tags, which alert other users of the possiblity to expand a given article. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! --Nehwyn 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome![edit]

It's nice to get mail and a welcome like you sent. Looking over your page, I saw a little tag added to a message that said "The preceding unsigned message was posted by xxxx" Looks like a good trick. How do you find out who posted an unsigned message? Thanks!Gobawoo 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Glad you liked the small welcome message. Indeed it's always nice to have new editors around, especially if they have read some of the Wikipedia policies before starting editing, as you seem to have done. As for your question, let me suggest that when you see something of interest in a page and want to know how it's done, try hitting the "edit this page" button - without actually editing of course (so hit the back button of the browser when you're done, don't save), just to take a look at the page structure and the tags used. In this case, you would have discovered the {{subst:Unsigned|username}} tag: you just substitute "username" with the name or IP of the user who has posted an unsigned comment, as revealed by the page history. Happy editing! =) --Nehwyn 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Would like to also say thanks for the welcome message that includes the links for wiki guidelines. I did start a discussion page for the article in question. I see your point about it, but feel perhaps there can be a place on Wiki for establishments that help perserve the unique flavor of a place. Also, seeing that the name has no matches on wiki, it seems a short period to allow discussion on a subject before rejection, seeing that many times I simply stumble upon entries and would hope that others who might contribute to this or any other article should be given ample time to do likewise. RoyBatty42 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And hello to you as well! You are referring to my prodding Local Yolk, of course. I think you are right in saying there can be a place on Wiki for establishments like that... only it's not Wikipedia; it's [Wikitravel]! =) --Nehwyn 07:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to handle all cities the same way.[edit]

-- Many greek cities have their turkish name, and that is the consensus. Of course greek cities are not the exception, the same must be done with all italina cities, and all cities in general that have an alternative name. It is unencyclopedic to hide the original or an alternative writting or spelling of the name of a city or country, and someone may accuse you of nationalism. I think consensus is against nationalism. Bbb1992 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. Please, propose changes such as inserting a translation for a country name in that article's talk page. You have been blocked before for this kind of behaviour, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Thanks! --Nehwyn 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been blocked for the 3 revert rule, not for the behavior. Bbb1992 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason why you were in violation of the three-revert rule was that you tried to add a Greek translation to the name of Rome three times in 24h. Please, do not do that again, to either Rome or any other article. If you think there should be no mention of Turkish names for Greek cities, discuss that in the talk pages for those cities. Thanks! --Nehwyn 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think the correct is to mention Turkish names for Greek cities. I also think the correct is to have a common policy for all cities, thats whay I am trying to do the same for Rome. Recently the proverb "una fatsa una ratsa" has been prooved, the Y-chromosome of the Greeks, Turks and the Italians is similar. This genetical similarity gives me the motivation to name the turk cities using their greek name, the greek cities using their turkish name and the italian cities using their greek name.Bbb1992 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Express this concern on the talk page(s) of the article(s) you want to modify. If it draws enough agreement among editors of that article, it will be allowed in the article itself. If you keep on making edits without discussing them first on the article talk page(s), you will be warned again and then blocked as you have been before. --Nehwyn 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I've got an account since 2005, but my main machine is out of service at least until next Tuesday, I can't remember my password and I don't want to change it for such a short time. Thank you, however. 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Nehwyn 07:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove Notability tag from Fiorella Kostoris[edit]

She is probably Italy's only well known woman economist and an interesting character as well. If Wikipedia can have biographies of second rate Italian "actresses" it can have a biography for Kostoris as well ;-) . BTW I am not related to her. Thank you. Encyclops 16:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. It's not about her nationality or her gender; I'm just not satisfied about her notability in reference to WP:PROF. As for other non-notable biographies... if you see them, feel free to add the notability or even the prod tag to them. =) --Nehwyn 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism report[edit]

You reported (talkcontribsWHOISblock userblock log) to WP:AIV. Can you point me to the vandalism? I don't see it in the contribs, but if it's page-creation vandalism, deleted pages won't show up. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was User:, that I wanted to report because of vandalism to Augustus and to the talk page of User:; due to the similarities in their IP number and in the appearance of their talk pages, I must have mixed them up. Thanks for noticing! (The original user, in the meantime, has been blocked by another admin.) --Nehwyn 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem... I thought it was possibly a mistake but wanted to check. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your warm welcome[edit]

... which was nice to receive on my user talk page. And BTW, I also wholeheartedly agree that only registered users should be allowed to edit pages. In an even more Utopian scenario, only people who know something about a topic should be allowed to edit pages on said topic. Oh well, I can dream, can't I? Thanks again, GiovaneScuola2006 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Well.. in that scenario, you'd pretty much be back to a standard encyclopaedia then. Personally, I draw the line at anonymous users vs registered users (which, by the way, would also avoid a lot of vandalism we see from shared computers in school). --Nehwyn 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re : AfD/Jurong Entertainment Centre[edit]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I've decided to invoke ignore all rules because it has been lying around for double the stipulated AfD time (10 days), no other sysop is willing to close it with a huge AfD backlog (yes, almost all of the time I leave it to someone else), and minus my own opionon it is still a consensus to keep. Feel free to revert me if you insist, but I seriously don't think it'll change the result anyway. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was a "majority" to keep, not a "consensus" (the two do differ). If allowed, I can still provide reasoning to my nomination. Thanks for allowing me to revert your closure, but under Wikipedia policies, I cannot do that; only you, as the closing admin, can (even if on someone else's request). --Nehwyn 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rome (TV series)[edit]

When you added the RAI controversy section to Rome (TV series) you removed the BBC controversy section. It looks like that was a mistake, so I've added it back in. ChickenMarengo 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was. Thank you very much for noticing. --Nehwyn 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A little (spammed) thank you[edit]

ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Nehwyn for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. Thank you.

Regarding Centro Roselands[edit]

I looked over the article again at your request and, I'm sorry to say, I still hold my former opinion on the matter though I mean no offense by it. It seems to me that it is a typical shopping mall, pretty much like any other shopping mall and I don't feel that your average mall (or even slightly above average) is notable enough to deserve an article. The articles that were added don't establish notability. One of the references is from the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, exactly the kind of place you'd expect an Australian shopping center to be referenced. The other article it is a historical overview by the official website for Canterbury. You'll find similar things for most malls in the US and probably in Australia. Notability would be established if you could find sources that wouldn't necessarily be expected to cover the source. As an example, an article on my hometown's library culled from an organization that promotes libraries and from my hometown's website would not be nearly sufficient to establish that library as being notable. You'd need an article from some major publication that doesn't have a connection with the library, the same is the case with this mall. The fact that the mall was the largest in the southern hemisphere indicates that it may be notable enough, but this needs to referenced with something like a major newspaper article coming from a city where the mall is NOT located (as virtually any new mall will receive an article or two in the local paper). --The Way 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Still, I did not mean to say that those two references provided enough press coverage to satisfy notability under the press coverage criterion; I meant that they provided reliable enough evidence that the claim stated in the article is true (i.e. that it used to be the largest in the austral hemisphere, a fact I deem notable enough to warrant the existence of the article). Anyway, no problem, thanks for explaining your view! =) --Nehwyn 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations)#Shopping malls. Hopefully this will help clarify the "consensus" issue. --Elonka 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rome's infobox[edit]

Ciao! I reverted back the infobox to the standard form. I know that maybe you could not like it, it's a matter of opinion. By the way, it had once another form which was recently modified by another user. However, I think that we should put some standardization effort in this Encyclopedia, it could be ridiculous to have all Italian communes entries showing one graphics, and only Rome showing another. Also, the old infobox was ugly as it showed the area of province of Rome instead of the position of the city, and missed some other informations. Bye and let me know... good work!!! --Attilios 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Benritrovato! I still like the old infobox better, and I have reverted it accordingly. (Not to mention that you have removed one ISTAT reference.) Please note - you have already reverted it three times in 24h; a fourth time would be a violation of the 3R rule. Obtain consensus on the talk page first! --Nehwyn 22:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey! Are you treating me as a vandal? I've contributed with tons of edits for improve articles written by little intelligent people, I'm striving to standardize all the chaos created here, all incongruences (the infobox you are so stick one is blatantly one of them, I don't understand why you refuse the new one with such strength), and the menace of be blocked is what I receive? YOU are deleting everytime my positive editing! Please explain me why such an edit needs consensus from talk? What I seem is that you maybe don't like the new infobox, and you are pushing me until I could stop under the menace of 3RR. So you are happy with your ugly infobox showing the province of Rome, which is different from all others here in Wikipedia Italian communes, and I'm silented down. Thank you, thank you. You are on the verge to lose a good and prolific editor; be content to have people like Panarjedde or Fastifex instead of me here. --Attilios 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not questioning your history or past edits, and I have already stated that I like the general City infobox better. Please don't take offense if someone reverts your edits; it can happen if they disagree with you, as in this case. We all have the same rights to editing, and are all subject to Wikipedia policies, including the three-revert rule. --Nehwyn 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've rethought to the matter in the last minutes, and your behaviour sounded me more and more hateful. In practice, now you have absolute power on the current version of the article. The trick is simple: to revert back other editors' adds that you don't like until they are under the 3RR menace, and you will have the version of Rome you prefer for the rest of your life. Ah, ok, there's the "gain consensus on talk"... but who knows how much time one needs to gain it, for example I've found that's so easy for US editors to impose their bias on foreign matters, even if when their opinion is clearly wrong. Needs examples? Giovanni da Verrazano with a single "z" when even the Encyclopedia Britannica uses the correct "Verrazzano", or Syracuse directing to the US city, instead of the most more cultural Italian one, on the basis that "Syracuse US has an important University". That's ridiculous! We are doing something cultural here! Do you really think that we can one day compare positively towards Britannica when you are unable to show the position of Rome city in its page?!?... worse, when you childily show a read area for its province? Bah! I love Wikipedia so much, but I'm starting to get so upset with vandalism and lack of the minimal principles of seriousness here... We have articles about commercial malls in Atlanta longer that Giuseppe Mazzini... Bye and let me know. --Attilios 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, please don't take other editors reverting your edits as a personal offense. I can assure you that my reverting your edit was not a manifestation of hate. Nobody has "absolute power" on articles, and we're all subject to the same rules. Disagreements happen. If you see one of your edits repeatedly reverted by other editors, try arguing your case on the talk page for that article, in order to try and convince those who oppose your position on that particular matter. Just repeatedly inserting the change you want cannot work in the long run. Come on, don't let this discourage you. --Nehwyn 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Is that sarchasm? Anyway, yours is an abuse good and done. You looks so stuck to your' (unstandard) infobox to have even modified with a funny, almost invisible yellow spot the image of the provinces of Italy. You are adding unencyclopedical to unencyclopedical, sorry. Not to speak that the useless repetition of "Mayor of Rome": why not population of Rome, pop. density of Rome etc. in the other fields? My last appeal: why don't you take a moment to think that you could be wrong? Why only Rome should have a different infobox, even though you like it so much? Frankly, I don't like the standard infobox. But I like this could one day become a serious encyclopedia. With behaviours like yours, it will never be able. (PS write replies on my talk, plase) --Attilios 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Those were my genuine thoughts on the matter, not sarchasm. This is not a matter of being "wrong" or "right"; it is a matter of preference, and I simply stated that I like the general City infobox better. You are right, however, in evidencing the repetion of "Rome" in the mayor field; I have corrected it. --Nehwyn 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
N.B. - I prefer to continue ongoing discussion on the page where they started, for history reasons. However, I am going to post a notice to your talk page to inform you of my reply in case you're not watching this page. --Nehwyn 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
mhmhmh... Ok, compliments for your politeness, in this moment I'm really angry. Anyway, I continue to think that you should change idea. You are putting personal "preference" over Wikipedia "standardisation". I told you that frankly I don't like too much the standard infobox, why you can't do the same? Let me know. Hope you will do. --Attilios 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been through some heated discussions myself, but I try to keep a cool head. You know what, let's sleep over this, and resume tomorrow with clearer thoughts on comparing the two infoboxes. La notte porta consiglio! --Nehwyn 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Just curious, do you have an email address that I could use to contact you? If not, I understand, but I wanted to ask you something off-wiki. --Elonka 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I haven't activated the e-mail option because I prefer not to use e-mail for Wikipedia-related discussions. I understand that's not very polite, and for that I apologise. While I realise that's not your intent, in the past I've seen users discuss off-wiki "group strategies" that were "unsuitable to the general public" (I speculate from their edits they used this system to lobby Wikipedia discussions, but that is of course strictly my opinion), and I became disgusted with that phenomenon. As a consequence, I decided my activity on Wikipedia would be 100% transparent, accountable and traceable, and for that reason I only talk to other editors in public. Again, I apologise if this seems a wee bit rude. =) --Nehwyn 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Alright, let me be more clear, but hopefully without stepping on any toes. I've noticed that recently you've been the victim of some uncivil behavior on the part of another editor. That editor has also been displaying uncivil behavior to other people as well, and I am contemplating filing a User Conduct RfC. I have not yet made a decision on this, as I would prefer that it be a last resort option, but, if it does proceed to an RfC, would you be interested in participating? --Elonka 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to a discussion we're both involved in, and to an admin user with a peculiar disregard for guidelines. If that's the case, I'd say her behaviour in that case is, taken alone, not enough for RfC; but you say that similar behaviour has been used with other editors, and if that can be proved to have happened with more than one other person, that may indeed be enough for an RfC I'd be interested in. --Nehwyn 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Ancient Faith Radio[edit]

My intent with expanding the Ancient Faith Radio article was two-fold: 1. to place it in context; 2. to link to similar efforts.
You apparently thought that irrelevant and deleted it. After your deletion, I started to enter some background information on its talk page at Talk:Ancient Faith Radio because I don't want some history on the genre to be lost.
The other alternative I can think of is to go through a much more involved process: 1. create a category; 2. create a general history page for that category; 3. tag related articles with that category. That would be scalable and ideal in some sense, but seems like a lot of rigamarole for the currently small scale at which this genre operates.
Please advise with comments on the Talk:Ancient Faith Radio page, or my own User:Talk page.
--Markhu 01:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me about that article. I deleted the information you entered because it was not related to Ancient Faith Radio itself, but seemed to concern the phenomenon of Orthodox-related radio and music in the US in general; I can see your comment on Talk:Ancient Faith Radio also goes in that direction, and your comment here also states that it's the history of the genre that you'd like to write about. I'd suggest creating a general page about it, something like "Orthodox Christian Radios in the United States" (but create the content before creating the article, or it may get deleted) and linking it from the more general Christian radio. Creating a category may be too much at the moment indeed, but if you do have referenced information about the history of that particular sub-genre in the US, an article is certainly warranted. --Nehwyn 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
N.B. - I prefer to continue ongoing discussions on the page where they started, for history reasons. However, I am going to post a notice to your talk page to inform you of my reply in case you're not watching this page. --Nehwyn 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guessed[edit]

I guessed it was accidental :). Cheers, --Aminz 20:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You've earned it![edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all the welcomes that you have extended to the newcomers. LittleOldMe 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very, very much indeed. It's much appreciated. =) --Nehwyn 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Re: your prod tag at Romanticismlifeandtimes, there are several references specified at the bottom so I'm not sure WP:NOR applies. In fact, that's the only reason I didn't prod it myself. Otherwise, I have no idea what that article is supposed to be and why it's not just part of Romanticism (or why the title is just one big word!) but "Original research" doesn't appear to be the correct reason to delete it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. You're quite right about the prod motivation. I'm pretty sure that article shouldn't exist, yet I'm still struggling to try and find a way to express that in legitimate Wikipedia terms. I'll probably just be bold and merge it as previously suggested. --Nehwyn 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your attention would be appreciated[edit]

Exactly what doyou mean by vandalism and nonsense? If I am to improve my contributions it would be appreciated if your terms were better defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K. G. Griffiths (talkcontribs)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. You'll find answers to these questions (including Wikipedia:Vandalism), as well as to more general concerns about Wikipedia editing, in the links provided in the welcome message posted at the beginning of your talk page. Don't be discouraged if your edits are initially reverted; not only this is quite common in Wikipedia, but as you read more Wikipedia policies and familiarise yourself with procedures, your contributions will improve and be more appreciated as well. =) --Nehwyn 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. And don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages (just press the tenth button from the left among those just above the editing area; four tildes will be insterted in the edit area, and will be displayed as your user signature).


Hi, best not to subst tags, as they then become very difficult to disentangle from each other, and harder to give parameters to. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough, 11:35 9 November 2006 (GMT).

I thought so, but I've read various reccommendations to do subst them... --Nehwyn 11:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

About my edit to Italian language[edit]

To keep the comments in order I have answered you on my talk page here. —Ian Spackman 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me! =) --Nehwyn 11:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese tea[edit]

sure. send me the pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkazuhiro (talkcontribs)

Thanks, coming. =) --Nehwyn 11:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey man, sorry did not know that removing the deletion notice was this serious. Will make sure I leave this one when I make the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binoj7 (talkcontribs)

Hello there. The AfD template specifically states that it must not be removed. Please, be more careful in the future. (And don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes!) --Nehwyn 11:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I've thought about it and I suppose you're correct that it should be put in history. I made a new version for the 2nd paragraph which is more general:

According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC. Archeological evidence supports claims that Rome was inhabited since the 8th century BC or even earlier. The city was the center of Roman civilization that at its height stretched from Mauritania to the borders of Iran and from the borders of Scotland and Britain to Egypt. The city was pivotal and responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture that endures to this day. Rome is also identified with Christianity and the Catholic Church and has been the episcopal seat of the Popes since the 1st century AD. The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See, is an enclave of Rome; it is the smallest nation in the world. Rome is one of the largest cities of the European Union.

Dr mindbender 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. I'm glad you agree. I'll review this version as soon as possible; I'm a bit busy at the moment and I want to devote my full attention to it. =) --Nehwyn 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So here we go. I like your new version, and the removal of dates (except for the founding, of course), but:
1) we need to use words which can be incorporated as wikilinks,
2) the final sentence about being among the largest cities in the EU has been included in the first paragraph, so we don't need to repeat it in the second paragraph;
3) you've added a few remarks that are not relevant to Rome as a city. For example, the borders of the Empire are surely relevant for articles such as ancient Rome and Roman Empire, but not for Rome, which is about the city in itself. Same goes with the remark about the Vatican being the smallest state in the world; good for Vatican City, and for the Vatican City section of Rome, but not really for the intro, I'd say.
How about something like this:
Rome has been inhabited at least since the 8th century BC; according to legend, it was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21 753 BC. The city was the cradle of Roman civilisation and responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture, shaping Western civilisation and spawning the largest and longest-lasting empire of classical antiquity. Rome is also important within Christianity as the centre of the Catholic Church, being the episcopal see of the Popes, under whom it gained new splendour during the Renaissance. Even though the city became capital of Italy following the Risorgimento, the state of the Vatican City remains as a sovereign enclave within the city territory.
Would that do? --Nehwyn 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the compliment. I agree with some of your comments. This isn't final since I have to run, but this is my version with respect to your comments:
According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC. Archeological evidence supports claims that Rome was inhabited since the 8th century BC or even earlier. The city was the center of Roman civilization that at its height stretched from Mauritania to the borders of Iran and from the borders of Scotland and Britain to Egypt. The city was pivotal and responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture that endures to this day. Rome is also identified with Christianity and the Catholic Church and has been the episcopal seat of the Popes since the 1st century AD. The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See, is an enclave of Rome.
Unfortunately we cannot divorce the significance of Rome at the height of the Empire. Let's put the likns at the history. Sorry to cut this short. gotta run. Dr mindbender 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I still think that's confusing Rome as a civilisation (ancient Rome) with the city of Rome (Rome). Moreover, I'm afraid that your proposal of an intro devoid of wikilinks is unacceptable to me. If you hold on to these conditions, I note your points, but I'd say that we will not be able to find a common ground, and formal mediation remains as the only way forward. --Nehwyn 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be alarmed, I understand your need for links, I just didn't have time to work further:
Rome (Italian and Latin: Roma) is the capital city of Italy and of the Lazio region, as well as the country's largest and most populous comune, with about 2.5 million residents (3.8 million considering the whole urbanised area, as represented by the Province of Rome). It is located in the central-western portion of the Italian peninsula, where the river Aniene joins the Tiber. As one of the largest cities in the European Union, the Comune di Roma has a gross domestic product of €97 billion in the year 2005, equal to 6.7% of Italy's GDP — the highest proportion of GDP produced by any single Italian comune. The current Mayor of Rome is Walter Veltroni.
According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC. Archeological evidence supports claims that Rome was inhabited since the 8th century BC and earlier. The city was the center of Roman civilisation that at its height stretched from Mauritania to the borders of Iran and from the borders of Scotland and Britain to Egypt. The city was pivotal and responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture that endures to this day. Rome is also identified with Christianity and the Catholic Church and has been the episcopal seat of the Popes since the 1st century AD. The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See, is an enclave of Rome.
Rome, Caput mundi ("capital of the world"), Limen Apostolorum ("threshold of the Apostles"), "la città dei sette colli" ("the city of the seven hills") or simply, l'Urbe ("the City")[1] to the Romans, is thoroughly modern and cosmopolitan. Having escaped World War II relatively unscathed, it essentially remains Renaissance in character. This treasure of the world is listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site[2] by virtue of its three thousand years of history and art: a city of the divine and the sublime, of gods, kings, emperors and popes — forever Città Eterna — forever the "Eternal City".
The above would be my full version with most changes for the second and third paragraphs of the introduction. I have modified the 1st paragraph simply for coherence and consistency in style. I have taken certain liberties of literary devices and effect to give a certain grandiloquence to the prose to make it more compelling and have a more rhetorical and oratorical texture. This I do in view of Rome's pedigree of great orators like Cicero, Cato and Ceasar (of course I pale in comparison). This is in effect my tribute to the ancients as best I can do at the moment and at best a shadow of Churchillian eloquence as best that I could muster. With all due respect, I do not want the introduction to be telegraphic - it wouldn't do justice to the subject; it would be very bland - filling but unappetizing. I like to treat the reader as sufficiently intelligent to understand without spelling it out everytime. I hope you are reasonable enough or to understand why. Please read it with patience and with an open mind just as I have been very concious of your concerns. Respectfully Dr mindbender 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Commendable effort. Give me a day or two to think about it. --Nehwyn 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So here I am. Thanks for accepting my remark about wikilinks, but the concern I expressed above about getting farther from a common ground, instead than nearer, not only still stands (as the two passages I objected to remain, i.e. listing the borders of the Empire and saying it survived the last war relatively unscathed), but is actually augmented by two more objections, one about grandiloquence and rhaetorics (things I actively dislike when found in Wikipedia, preferring as I do to stick to a linear, encyclopaedic tone), and that about stating that the city essentially remains "Renaissance" in character (that may apply to Municipium I, but that's the smallest part of the city). This is evidently going in opposite directions. --Nehwyn 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposition: Since we obviously aren't converging on a solution, then I propose to subject it to a random vote of 10 people. This is how I propose to do it:

  1. I will provide my full version, above, and you will provide your full version of the main topic for Rome.
  2. Please select articles from these general categories: 1)history 2)math 3)British poets/English playwrights 4) philosophers 5)ancient Greek dramatists/authors 6)chemists 7)presidents or prime ministers 8) generals of world war II 9)animals 10)diseases.
  3. You will provide five topics/wikipedia articles and I will provide the other five.
  4. I will select a contributor per article you selected and you will select a contributor per article I selected. Ten different contributors total.
  5. I will submit your version and my version to the contributors I selected from your articles. You will submit my version and your version to the contributors you selected from my articles.
  6. We will ask the contributors the SAME very basic question: "Hi, you have been selected as a random arbitrator on a wikipedia article. We request you to read the two competing versions, below, at face value, make a choice and answer the following question: Which version do you like? - Pls. make a selection. Thank you."VERSION 1:(author will not be named) -- VERSION 2:(author will not be named) That is all; all that matters is "I like VERSION 1 or I like VERSION 2". regardless of any comments they will have.
  7. The votes will be tallied and the one with 6 votes or more will be put at the main section. This is a pretty equitable method that I hope you will agree.
  8. If a contributor does not vote within 3 days, I will notify you or vice-versa and another will be selected for the vote.
  9. For a tie breaker, you will select a random article and I will select a contributor and ask the same question.

By the way, I will meet you half-way with the following edit on the 2nd paragraph.

According to legend, the city of Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on April 21, 753 BC. Archeological evidence supports claims that Rome was inhabited since the 8th century BC and earlier. The city was the cradle of Roman civilisation that produced the largest and longest-lasting empire of classical antiquity. The city was pivotal and responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture that endures to this day. Rome is also identified with Christianity and the Catholic Church and has been the episcopal seat of the Popes since the 1st century AD. The State of the Vatican City, the sovereign territory of the Holy See, is an enclave of Rome. Dr mindbender 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome!--Leskatch 11:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're very much welcome. =) --Nehwyn 11:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dashboard of Sustainability[edit]

Hi Nehwyn,

You probably suggested the Dashboard page for deletion, on the grounds of "Unsourced Original research". Let me briefly explain why I think deletion would not be justified:

- The db has indeed been developed by myself and the CGSDI
- Whether that is a "reliable" and "verifiable" source, could be discussed, of course; however, behind the tool are:
1. IISD (Google hit No. 5 among 65 Million for "Sustainable Development")
2. The Joint Research Centre, JRC, a Directorate General of the European Commission

- The Dashboard is not controversial to my knowledge. It does not advance "our" specific indicators, but rather uses official indicator sets such as the United Nations CSD and MDG sets.

- It is pretty popular: a Google search for the very generic term Millennium Development Goals Indicators puts it on rank 2 among one Million, directly behind the official United Nations MDG page, and before OECD, UNDP, WHO, UNESCO, World Bank and others.
Would these arguments change your mind?
Greetings, Jochen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj2006 (talkcontribs)

Hello there, and thanks for your contribution and for contacting me. I am indeed convinced that the Dashboard of Sustainability concept is notable. My concern lies in the article describing it, which needs some cleanup to conform to encyclopaedic standards. Also, the fact that it was written by a developer of the Dashboard itself constitutes a clear conflict of interest, which is strongly deprecated by Wikipedia. However, due to the objective interest of the subject matter, I agree that deletion is not warranted. Considering that I am unrelated to the project, I will try to modify the article myself over the next couple of days, to bring it closer to current policies. --Nehwyn 12:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Nehwyn!
I understand the "conflict of interest" concern, and welcome very much your willingness to contribute yourself to a neutral article.
The dashboard itself is not controversial, since it just takes indicator sets that are publicly available, and displays them in a format (e.g. colour-coded maps) that is easier to understand than Excel spreadsheets. That explains why it is popular.
However, in the indicator community, there is an ongoing dispute whether aggregation of indicators to indices is a good thing to do. About half of the crew say we shouldn't do that, the other half says it's ok. The dashboard doesn't force anybody to aggregate, but it can aggregate apples and oranges quite easily ;-)
Regarding neutrality, you may find links to the dashboard both from OECD and, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, from the World Social Forum...
Cheers Jochen Jj2006 12:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. As you may have noticed, another editor has pointed out that the text of the page is copied from another source (reportedly, a fact I had not realised. Under Wikipedia policies, this is grounds for immediate deletion of the article, unless you are the author of that text, and you are willing to release it into public domain. If that is the case, please put the {{hangon}} at the beginning of the article, then state that you are the author of the original document in the talk page for the article (Talk:Dashboard of Sustainability). In case you don't see this notice in time and the article has been deleted already, don't worry; you may of course recreate it with the same content, but you have to state that you are the author of the original document in the talk page, otherwise it will be deleted again. --Nehwyn 14:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nehwyn and Jj2006. I was brought to Nehwyn's talk page to thank him for some help he gave me (see below). I saw your troubles with Dashboard of Sustainability and thought that the best way to thank him was to assist. I redirected Dashboard of Sustainability to HERE and expanded that article to include info on the Dashboard of Sustainability. Again, thanks for the help Nehwyn. And Jj2006, you should be out saving the world (for which we all owe you a debt of thanks). -- Jreferee 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me helping out a newcomer. =) --Nehwyn 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Giulio Einaudi[edit]

Thank you for your quick translation of it:Giulio Einaudi into Giulio Einaudi. Once I am through improving Giulio Einaudi, would you like me to let you know so that you can translate it back into it:Giulio Einaudi? -- Jreferee 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure! (I'm watching the article.) --Nehwyn 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Service stations[edit]

I see that you have listed all of the service stations for deletion. This has been discussed several times (eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services) and the result has been to keep. Is there any reason you have listed them again? Regan123 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion debate which included some of them indeed resulted in a keep, but one of the main arguments in favour of that was that these were stubs, and would therefore be likely expandeded; this hasn't been the case, so they remain in a form that contains no claim to notability and no sources, the two classic marks of articles for deletion. --Nehwyn 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that they are still stubs, but to only allow such a short period between one debate and now prodding for deletion seems to me to be unfair and not allowing sufficient time. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that have been that for a lot longer without bringing about a prod. Could we not leave more time and then revist it? Regan123 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Normally I would concur, but... the fact is, I haven't prodded them because they are very short articles, or because I think they haven't been expanded to the point that they actually include some claim to notability. It's rather that I think they can never be expanded to that point, because there is no notability to claim. :-/ --Nehwyn 22:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that some have had concerns about the notability issue, but as the last discussion was only 6 weeks ago I still think this is far too soon. I would appreciate it if you could give them more time to be expanded. They are on a personal to do list, but that is quite long and bearing in mind they will unlikely to pass a speedy deletion, considering the previous discussions, I think that to propose them again via an AfD will get the same result. Cheers, Regan123 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello.... I'm in agreement with Regan (and I don't even like Motorway Service Areas!) It's difficult to say that some do not and will never have any notability.... For example, on the M6 at Forton there's the old concrete tower, which only in the last 10 years have people begun to say is architectually significant. The same could be said for modern glass ones, not significant today, but in 30 years time an example of 2000s architecture? All these service areas will have build dates, as well as notable dates and other information such as operator, turnover, access, vehicles per day etc. using them - all potentially useful information. However, the amount of wikipedia information on the road system in the UK is still relatively small (compared with, say, railways), and we've not yet had sufficient chance to improve the articles; South Mimms being a case in point, where there is a lot to say about it (as demonstrated by the Channel 4 (IIRC) programme on it, but it has still been marked for deletion (again). If the ones deemed as not notable are to be deleted, then so should most of the Railway stations listed, many of which are stubs, containing identical information to the next one up the line with nothing of any significance to distinguish them at all. C2r 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. You have valid arguments, but: 1) the fact that some may be considered architecturally significant a few decades in the future only prompts me to say that, should that happen, an article could be created on them thirdy years in the future; 2) the information you deem "potentially useful" may indeed be so, but Wikipedia is not for "useful" (or "interesting")... it's just for "notable", and I think that kind of information belong in Wikitravel. 3) Railway stations have been deemed to be automatically notable (just like towns and airports), while the same does not apply currently to service areas. Sorry, but... I'm convinced those article do not belong here, at least in separate form; there's always the possiblity of merging them, as per WP:LOCAL. --Nehwyn 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello... you may not be convinced whether the articles belong here or not, but the results of all the previous requests for deletion appear to be that the general consensus is to keep - therefore to propose deletion again immediately after they were originally proposed for (and rejected for) deletion seems to me a waste of everyone's time. Your comments that Railway Stations and airports are deemed to be automatically notable while motorway service areas are not also seems to be a very perculiar ruling - could you direct me to the page where this was discussed and deemed to be the case, as I'm sure the same reasoning could apply to motorway service areas as applies to railway stations.... As far as I'm aware there's absolutely nothing of significance about either Bayford or Crews Hill stations that could not be included on the 'locality' page about the villages.... whereas Motorway Service areas exist independently of location (they may be near none), and also independently of any one motorway (they may be attached to more than one). C2r 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Emperor[edit]


Why did you revert my recent edit to the above article? What I said is factual and, while favouring one side of the argument, did not come down pedantically against other readings.

As a graduate of Ancient History, I speak with some authority on the matter and propose to revert your edit unless you have a good reason why I shouldn't?

Thanks, bigpad 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. You may have noticed that section of the article contains two subsequent paragraphs, a first one about the motivations why Julius Caesar should be considered an emperor, and a second one about why he should not. Your addition to the article, which expressed the latter opinion (with which I concur, BTW), was added to the first paragraph, when it should have been integrated within the second. Moreover, while it is indeed historically reasonable, you presented it as an unsourced statement (WP:Cite sources); if you were to quote a published historian stating the same, that would of course be acceptable. That said, in its current form the whole article is completely unreferenced, and as such well below Wikipedia standards. --Nehwyn 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Asian Wisconzine[edit]

thank you for the note.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alden pascual (talkcontribs)

You're welcome. =) --Nehwyn 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

I am glad I could explain myself correctly. Keep the good work up! -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul B. Kantor[edit]

Please take a look at the current version of Paul B. Kantor. I added some publications and references to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me. I'd say I'm satisfied with the evidences of notability emerged during the debate. --Nehwyn 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


It's not important whether WP:LOCAL is tagged as notability guide or not, because neither are several other pages on that list. The question is whether WP:LOCAL is relevant, and since it covers the same principles as e.g. WP:MUSIC that appears to be the case. As a side point I do not see any discussion on the matter on the talk page, I just see you pointing out that you changed it. The tag isn't important either way, the relevance is. (Radiant) 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I see your point, and indeed it's not important whether WP:LOCAL is tagged as a notability guide. It's more important whether it is one, and following discussion where and editor pointed out that notability was not discussed, it was decided that WP:LOCAL would not deal with notability issues, and take a different direction (look for it, it's below). --Nehwyn 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have started a thread discussing this point more explicitly in the talk page... just to make sure this direction is what people want to keep on pursuing. --Nehwyn 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the template lists a number of related issues. Not all of those are notability guidelines per se. Neither is this one, but it certainly is related and should therefore remain on the template. (Radiant) 12:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Again... I see your point. I just disagree with it. =) --Nehwyn 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Italy[edit]

Here is the temporary page for WikiProject Italy. Kingjeff 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The project has been now listed as a full project, so please add your name to the list of members here. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Styey Mc Styles[edit]

I just had a chat to Styley and he said "what a cumstain fagbreath"(i didn't, it was him). He also dedicated a song to you, dude. So before this page gets deleted it is my final wish that you visit and listen to "threaten you with death", you could also use a listen to "learn your place". Have fun! And ciao. (Gilesthompson 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Japanese Tea[edit]

Hey Nehwyn,

I apologize for the delay of my response. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while due to school. The tea you got from your friend is Hoji Tea.

The first image, Japanesetea1.jpg, says

  • Dentou no bimi --> Delicacy of Tradition
  • Hoji cha --> Hoji tea

The second image, Japanesetea2.jpg says

  • Seishin Joshi Gakuin --> Sacred Heart Girls Academy
  • Shizuoka Ken, Susono Shi, Momo Sono, 198 --> (An Address)
  • (Telephone Number)

The third image, Japanesetea3.jps says

  • Hoji cha no oishii meshi agari kata --> The way to prepare your Hoji tea with optimum deliciousness
  • Kyusu mata wa dobin ni houji cha wo tappuri ire futtou shita oyu wo sugu sosogi yunomi ni tsugi wake masu. --> After puting a full amount of the Hoji tea into a small or earthen pot then immediately pour boiled water into it and pour that into the teacups.
  • Hoji cha dokutoku no kaori to sawayaka na aji ga hodo yoku demasu --> You will notice the unique flavor and the refreshing taste of the Hoji tea all the more.
  • Toku ni shoku go no danran, mata wa okosama you niwa saiteki de gozaimasu. --> It is especially suitable for after meal teatime or for children.

--Davidkazuhiro 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the translation... I didn't know what Hoji tea was, but I know now. :) --Nehwyn 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dashboard of Sustainability Round II[edit]

The Dashboard of Sustainability page was recreated. I'm not sure whether our comments here still apply. Please review to determine whether your initial concerns have been addressed. -- Jreferee 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article for deletion[edit]

(below) I am letting you know about this because you were the second contributor to the article. If you have any information on the notability of the Saturday Post, please do not hesitate to include it. Guroadrunner 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Saturday Post[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Saturday Post, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Jennifer Ann Crecente[edit]

Hi, you chimed in during the discussion for an AfD for this article a while back. The article was re-created after two pieces of legislation were passed. If you could please look at the new article and share your thoughts at the NEW AfD I would appreciate it!

Jennifer Ann Crecente 2nd AfD

Drew30319 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin ATM Machines in Vatican[edit]

I know this is a fact, but am not a very experiences user. I've seen it in several books, but the best source I've seen it in is a National Geographic video called "Inside the Vatican." How would we go about citing that as a source? 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia or encyclopedia[edit]

It seems that in most cases spelling from the first contribution should persevere; however, since the spelling "encyclopedia" is in the title of our project, should this be used consistently? --Kevin Murray 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference depends on British or American usage, so it falls within the Wikipedia policy on varieties of English: both varieties are acceptable, and as you remark, the variety already in place in a given article should be preserved. (Unless of course the article is extensively rewritten, but that is not the case.) --Nehwyn 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported for vandalism?[edit]

What the hell? on the page of the Second Triumvirate, i noticed a certain user had changed a number of links to completely idiotic links( like random names). Therefore i reverted all those link changes that person made. And because of that i am told to stop vandalizing the page? Next time please make sure a user is actually vandalizing a page before warning that user. I may have made a mistake in my editing, but if you simply looked at my other changes, then you would see that it was a simple mistake, and not vandalism. Omegastar 12:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. I never gave you any vandalism warning, and you've never contributed to Second Triumvirate as far as I know. --Nehwyn 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Hi, the article about Holy Roman Empire is based on some at least inaccurate information. There is continuous critics about the article Kingdom of Germany which did not exist until 1871 but even it existed it was not what HRE was. Also the term first reich', please read the article German Empire specifically German_Empire#Name. Holy Roman Empire was not a monarchy it was a conglomerate of various lands and countries across the medieval Europe based mainly on the clerical principles and as a counterbalance against France on the west and Turkey on the east. My edits are based mainly on the interwiki from German version which is very good and featured. Best regards and happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. You have been twice invited to discuss your rationale for proposed changes on the talk page for the article you intend to edit, so that people who are interested / have worked on it can see them and discuss them. And remember to write edit summaries when you change content. Thanks! --Nehwyn 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And what is your objection against those changes please? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That they are too important to be left unexplained. I see you have finally decided to post an explanation on the relevant talk page; that's good and I'm sure that if no opposition arises, your edits will be implemented. But you have to give other editors a chance to review your rationale when you are requested to do so. Also, when someone reverts your changes due to a content disagreement, please keep in mind that that does not represent vandalism - when your changes were reverted by another editor, you accused him of vandalism (that's what the "RV" abbreviation you used stands for) instead of responding to his request for explanation. --Nehwyn 09:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I did not accused anyone from vandalism because RV stands for revert and RVV stands for reverted vandalism afaik. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right on that one. Just another thing, please don't mark your edits as "minor" when they alter content. "Minor" edits are things like correcting typos, moving a picture from left to right and so on; anything that modifies the actual content of the article cannot be marked as minor. --Nehwyn 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Please don't just tag without checking google. The article was one that was requested and I consequently created it. It is a stub, not a speedy. Phgao 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. The db criterion used states that the reason for nomination is that it is a very short article providing little to no context, and therefore depends on article characteristics, not on the result of Google searches. You may be right in saying that the article can be expanded, though, although I would definitely move it to Carryback loan. --Nehwyn 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Done that already! Thanks. Phgao 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 08:53, 17 September 2007 Phgao (Talk | contribs) m (moved Carryback to Carryback loan: it is a loan) Phgao 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Nehwyn! I just wanted to thank you for your message :) It is sure to help me get around about wikipedia (with some experience from editing before.) Again, thanks so much! --GoldFlower 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very much welcome! --Nehwyn 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome message: looking forward to learning more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustint (talkcontribs)

You're very much welcome to! (And here's something for you: remember to sign your messages using four tildes in the end. They can be placed by simply pressing the signature button, it's the tenth from the left in the row of buttons just above the editing space.) --Nehwyn 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

Please note that the article is essentially a biographical piece and Meeuci's claims to the telephone are covered in a separate article on the inventor. You have to take up contentious issues on the talk page not in the article. Please respect the 3R dictum. FWIW Bzuk 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Hello there. I understand your worrying. I see you have reverted my edit twice in the last 24h, so you're still within the 3R rule. As for the rest, the issue has been already discussed on the talk page, and while the article is indeed a biographical piece, the fact that it contains a section on "competitors" means obviously that particular section does not deal with Bell's life, but on how others competed for his achievements. In avoiding POV as far as possible, I have taken care not to state that the resolution "recognises Meucci as the inventor of the telephone" or "does not recognise Meucci as the inventor of the telephone", but merely reported the resolution itself. As a further effort in mediating the issue, I have also integrated your note about how the issue is still contentious within the text of that section. --Nehwyn 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perfectly acceptable, as this article was rife with POV statements earlier, I had worried that another Meucci champion had emerged. The "tin can on a string" invention that the late lamented inventor proposed had no basis in being considered an electronic device and was dismissed out of hand in the litigation against Bell. The US congressional resolution which I have read but also traced back though its lineage is an example of a legislator making an effort to tailor history to his liking. This is also the same gentleman proposing "Columbus Day" legislation. The scientific community and historians have universally derided this blatant attempt to make Meucci a martyr. FWIW Bzuk 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC).
The dispute is indeed complex and cannot be adequately covered in just a few words - it requires its own article, and indeed it has one - which is where it is best left. Given that there is a lot more to talk about in an article about Bell, I believe the current formulation of the sentence about the 2002 resolution is as neutral and synthetic as possible. --Nehwyn 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your principled and reasonable contributions to this Wikiwacky world which we inhabit. I commend you for your involvement. FWIW Bzuk 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

deleting links[edit]

Thank you for taking it upon yourself to delete links I have entered, we can all play that game, I will look up your contributions, and if I think they are not right will seek to change the aforementioned contributions through wikipedias rules, just because you disgree with a link does not give you right to change without good reason! use discussion pages first, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian arnold (talkcontribs) 16:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. It appears your account is a single-purpose account devoted to spreading the word about a certain group of nobility-related websites, apparently sharing a common management. This constitutes linkspam, and is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia policies. Sorry! (P.S. - Remember to sign your comments using four tildes!) --Nehwyn 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My article[edit]

It's nice to see that you are so quick to want my article deleted without talking to me first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXguy2608 (talkcontribs) 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. Please remember to sign your comments using four tildes at the end! As for your article, I'd say the right place to discuss it is its own AfD debate. (Don't be discouraged - an early stumble into the deletion process is common for new editors. If you do have reliable sources that corroborate what you claim in the article, it will definitely pass.) --Nehwyn 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you are doing your job however you should contact people before trying to erase their work here. I came on here hoping to find people who knew more information on the organization so it would help me with the book i'm writting on secret societies as well as get more information for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXguy2608 (talkcontribs)
Hello again. Please, remember to sign your comments using four tildes at the end (just click the sign button, which is the tenth from the left in the row of buttons just above the editing space). With regards to the matter at hand, I was going to suggest reading WP:CS and WP:RS, which basically say that you needverifiable references before writing an article on Wikipedia, but the tone of your final remark leads me to think that perhaps you would do well to read the WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK pages first. --Nehwyn 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


There was absolutely no need to keep Witchy369. A) User talk:Witchy369 is sufficient evidence and b) admins can see deleted edits (and usually it is totally boring stuff!). -- RHaworth 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! --Nehwyn 06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

Thanks for putting speedy deletion tag on the Selim Al Deen article. Read it again and write at the talk page why this page should be deleted. Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh 18:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done already - see the article talk page. --Nehwyn 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

You're welcome. :) *Cremepuff222* 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical Question[edit]


Thanks for supplying all of the information relating to peritonitis. It will help with my genealogical research.

I will take you up on your offer as I would like to ask your opinion on another medical topic. A few years back, in my early twenties, I started suffering from sudden-onset fatigue. I would suddenly become so tired that I could barely keep my eyes open and could not even think very clearly while this occurred but the spells would pass within about 15 minutes. Other than that, I felt fine all of the time and I had a healthy active lifestyle and good diet.

I therefore went to my GP who made me undergo some blood tests. Everything was fine except that I had a high bilirubin count, which indicated I had the extremely common condition, Gilbert's Syndrome. My doctor believed this to be the cause of my fatigue.

Since that time, I have moved interstate and now have a new GP. His opinion is that Gilbert's Syndrome is totally benign and that my fatigue is not caused by it. He is, in fact, at a loss to explain why I should become so tired. He suggested it could be anxiety-related, as I have had some stresses in my life from a few different causes.

Reading webpages like this:

I certainly have the symptoms of fatigue, "brain fog" and slight jaundice in that my eyes have a very mild yello tinge. I do not have any of those other symptoms that they list.

According to a few other websites, there seems to be some debate as to whether Gilbert's Syndrome is totally benign or is responsible for these symptoms. Do you know much about this condition? What are your thoughts?

Basically, both GPs told me there was nothing that could be done about it. The only important thing to do is not to skip any meals as this leads to build up of bilirubin.

I can live with it but my only fear is becoming really fatigued suddenly whilst driving my car.

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.


David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here on the Wikipedia talk page for the subject, some people are also debating the topic:
Is it simply that no one has studied it enough because it is not a really dangerous syndrome???? 11:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello David, nice to talk to you again. Regarding your question, I have four things to say.
  • One: Gilbert syndrome is indeed a very common and benign condition. I'm not a specialist in that specific disease category, but based on my studies as well as on Gilbert patients I've met, I would agree more with your second GP, in that the symptoms you described are unlikely to be caused by Gilbert syndrome. Indeed, the concept of the latter being utterly asymptomatic except for mild jaundice is what is supported by renowned medical textbooks (I went back and did some additional reading since you asked), and I would definitely give more credit to them than to websites, even the well-meaning ones. Which brings me to the next point.
  • Two: Please do not trust the web for health-related information. I can perfectly see why a concerned person would turn to websites - if you're concerned, you want more information, and that websites offer easily, as opposed to actual medical literature (difficult to access, and written for people with medical training). Still, the medical information on most websites is unreliable, and you should especially distrust websites that do not declare who the author is (and if he/she holds any medical qualification). Take the one you mentioned, for example. Not only it is anonymous, but also notice that the section about Gilbert symptoms is based on complaints reported on a web forum. That has got to be unreliable, for example because: there's no guarantee that those people actually had Gilbert syndrome and/or that they did not have some other condition accounting for those same symptoms (and since they are quite vague symptoms, there's a host of possible causes). The discussion on the talk page for Gilbert's syndrome you linked above has a good explanation about why sources like that websites should be disregarded. Now, of course there are reliable health-related websites out there: those that belong to scientific societies (for example, is a reliable source of heart-related information because it belongs to the European Society of Cardiology).
  • Three: I suppose it is true that there has not been much innovation in the way of research about Gilbert syndrome after its basic genetic / enzymatic mechanism was discovered. The only point that remains obscure is why some people with the mutation never get the high bilirubin that should go with it.
  • Four: I understand you are left wondering what is causing your symptoms then. Regrettably, this is not the kind of medical problem where adequate advice can be offered over the internet - without a full history, physical examination, and review of previous test results, I'd be just throwing guesses around in Doctor House style. I do think however that you and your current GP should definitely investigate your symptoms a bit further, perhaps undergo polysomnography and/or EEG if you haven't already, which would clear the field of some possible hypotheses, if nothing else. --Nehwyn 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nehwyn, Thanks for replying again. In response to your points:
  • One: Yes, the fact that Gilbert's Syndrome apparently affects around two percent of the population made me suspicious too. As a layman, I presume that if many of this two percent was suffering bad fatigue from it, it would be a huge health problem. We would be hearing about it in the mainstream media from time to time. As it is, I had not ever heard of Gilbert's Syndrome until I was diagnosed with it.
  • Two: Yes, thanks for that advice. I definitely do strongly agree with you that it is dangerous to trust websites for medical information or when people try to do self-diagnoses from text books. I was just looking up further information about it after being diagnosed and found that there was a common trend on a number of different sites where people were reporting fatigue. The weblink I provided and the Wiki talk pages were just two examples of that. Of course, we don't know if these other people have different underlying issues or if it is all in their minds, etc. Since web posts are anonymous, many complainants could be hypochondriacs for all we know! What really interested/disturbed me was just the fact that they were all having this debate as to whether it is benign or not, especially since my GPs had conflicting opinions.
  • Three: I am a bit curious about this. If some people don't have the high bilirubin count, is there another test that identifies the syndrome? What other indicators are there?
  • Four: Yes, I completely understand why you would not want to make a diagnosis over the internet. My GP only had two other suggestions. One is fatigue attributed to nerves/anxiety. I have had stress in my life over some personal issues that have occurred over the past few years. I never realised anxiety could lead to severe fatigue though. I have always had trouble relaxing and I am generally described as a fairly "tense" person.
My GP suggested perhaps I should even see a counsellor but I was a bit stubborn about that. I should probably be less pig-headed though because there are a few things in life I am not very good at coping with. (Just dealing with loss of ex-girlfriend and things like that.) Could stress like that cause ongoing fatigue, since I seem to have both mental anxiety and an inability to physically relax my muscles very well?
The other thing he briefly alluded to was that I should maybe see a sleep specialist in case i had sleep apnoea or something similar. Apparently, my voice sometimes becomes very nasal when I talk, indicating some kind of blockage in my nasal passage. It was interesting that he mentioned that because I was not aware of it myself and no other GP had ever raised the issue with me. He only spoke briefly to me about this and we never returned to the issue. I haven't seen him for some months so I should really make another appointment.
As noted, my chief concern is having a bout of fatigue whilst driving. It just comes on quickly and I have the "brain fog" so I cannot think clearly and it is literally an enormous effort to even keep my eyes open. A fifteen minute sleep and it passes though. Sometimes I am only really half-asleep in this state, like I am aware of where I am but I am too tired to do anything or respond if people speak, even if I half-hear them.
The fatigue also impacts on my quality of life as it disrupts my studies and work somewhat so I would really love answers so I can find away of counteracting it effectively. The only other curious thing I have noted is that after these fifteen minute sleeps, I sometimes have some gas in my upper chest and need to burp a few times, as if it had built up there. After normal nightly sleep this is not the case. I don't know if this would be related to anything.
Thanks again for all your help. I am sure you are a busy person and it is great that you can take the time to answer my questions,
David —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there again. Don't mention it, it's a pleasure answering to your questions - just hope you'll keep me posted if any progress is made in the future! Regarding point number three, there is only one test that can confirm or exclude Gilbert's syndrome with 100% confidence, and that is a specific DNA analysis to identify the culprit mutation. It is not performed routinely for various reasons (too many different mutations possible, and probably just wastes money since even a positive result "does not alter patient management" - jargon for: "whether it comes back positive or not, the syndrome is still harmless so you live exactly the same way"). Even avoiding skipping meals is only a precaution, since the worst it can happen is your eyes and skin getting yellow (even if you skip a meal, your bilirubin will rise but well below the level of serious danger). In other words, the important thing is to exclude other causes of high bilirubin - once you have done that correctly (it may take a few years of "wait and see" to be sure that nothing else emerges), Gilbert's syndrome is so common that statistically it's overwhelmingly likely to be the cause, even if you haven't demonstrated the mutation.
As for the rest, anxiety could literally cause inability to rest, which of course causes fatigue and concentration deficit. Still, you specifically describe having those well-defined, brief spells of acute somnolence, and that doesn't quite fit. Your GP's other suggestion, an unrecognised sleep disorder, was on my mind too - that's why I suggested polysomnography, and that's the direction I would take first. Sleep apnoea is a possibility, but numerous less common sleep disorders exist too. I don't think the burping thing is related though. The other investigation that would be immensely helpful would be a 24h EEG monitoring to try and catch one of those spells on record (being a 24h monitoring, obviously that is only likely if you have at least one spell every 24 hours on average, though). When we go to sleep, the electrical activity in our brain goes through a well-defined sequence of changes from the waking state to progressively deeper sleep. A lot of information could be gathered if we could actually see how that process happens during one of those spells, and then how it reverses when you wake up from it. For now just take an appointment with your GP, see what he says. --Nehwyn 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nehwyn, thanks again for your informative reply. Sorry that I have taken so long to respond: my home computer was broken and Wikipedia is blocked by our web filters at work. I will follow-up with my doctor on the possibility of it being a sleep disorder. Cheers, David. (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi David. You had me worry a bit. Cheers! :) --Nehwyn (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Binder[edit]

Hey, Nehwyn. Glad you got involved in this long overdue article so quick. Just wondered what the Ace award-winning thing is about; is there an "Ace Award", or is Binder an ace i.e. shit-hot director? I'm gonna add more to the article later. Thanks. Rikstar 10:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Apparently there is such a thing as an "Ace Award". I simply got it from one of the two links you referenced in the article. --Nehwyn 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It would help if I was fully awake and read my own sources... Rikstar 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Keep up the good work. :) --Nehwyn 10:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion...I am new but my posting is quite releveant[edit]

Hi , i just posted my first entry and it says it may be deleted... I looked at the guide lines about relevance..I feel that as far as the music industry goes...Hep Shepherd is pioneering a new model for the music industry to prosper and artists to flourish...He was recently in newsweek..which I believe is quite credible!

Please advise..i have seen many musicians in here that don't have nearly the relevance to today's issues in music that Shepherd does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmusicfan (talkcontribs)

Hello there, and thanks for contacting me. First of all, please sign your comments by placing four tildes at the end - you can simply do that by pressing the signature button, it's the tenth from the left in the row of buttons just above the editing space.
Regarding your request... I'm sorry your first contribution was deleted, but don't worry, it's quite a common occurrence among new users. More to the point, just consider that if someone's profile does not meet the WP:BIO, or in this case the WP:MUSIC criteria, it will be deleted. The basic criterion is that we need multiple reliable sources to assert notability, and that the person must be the object of those sources, not just mentioned in passing. If these conditions are met, try and recreate the article incorporating exact references, and it will be considered again for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Also, you say you have seen musicians featured in Wikipedia that are less relevant than the one you mention... can you point me to any of those? --Nehwyn (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


May I ask why you tagged transaminitis for deletion as an "invented disease"? A simple Google search shows multiple research papers discussing it. DS (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit this is a big head-scratching question. The term "transaminitis" appears in none of the medical textbooks I've studied, and was never mentioned during my degree. Still, you are right in that it appears to be a real neologism, probably to distinguish LFT elevation in non-inflammatory hepatotoxicity as opposed to hepatitis. Oh well. --Nehwyn (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My talk[edit]

You seem to keep posting on my talk, and I have got the message. But who are you talking about, dudesleeper??. Because I just deleted something I wrote, which if it is against wiki policy/manners I apologise. Cf38 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but I'm not talking about him. Even after my message, you did it again on User:ErvsMus, but you've done it on several user pages, all day. Examples include User:Olinuser‎, User:Sccrqueen13‎, and User:Chidiebas‎, to mention just three. Offering a welcome message to a new user is a splendid thing, but please leave the message on their talk page, not on their user page. (Just like you left this message above on my talk page, not my user page.) --Nehwyn (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Listen mate, I AM putting the welcome templates on their talk pages! I checked user:irish guy14 and my welcome template was on his disscusion page, not his user page! Cf38 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You put the message on his user page (again). Check the page history here:

Now that is what you should not do. If the page name reads "User:" followed by a user name, that is a user page, and you should not edit it without that user's permission. Welcome messages go on talk pages, where there is "User talk:" followed by the user name instead. Like this one:

Where, as you can see, someone else posted a correct welcome message. And by the way, you did it yet again, this time on User:DEATHWALKER92 (also a user page, note the absence of the word "talk" in the page name). I appreciate your efforts, but please do pay attention to where you put your messages! --Nehwyn (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe something is seriously wrong, because when I do it it says that Im on the users talk page? Do you think I should contact an admin or something? Please reply on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talkcontribs)
Well, you did place messages to me as well as to Gurch in the correct place. Try again with a new user, be sure that the page name contains the word "talk", and I'll tell you if you did it right. --Nehwyn (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


im sorry i didnt mean to be rude to cf38 but he did call me some names and critisice my spelling. which i cannot help deu to dylexia.

It wont happen again

p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabbayobba (talkcontribs) 15:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Very well then. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[4] What were you trying to do? — NovaDog(contribs) 21:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Server lag problem apparently. I edited the page when it was like this, you were doing the same, and instead of notifying me with an edit conflict problem, it just applied both edits. I never saw yours until you pointed it out. It happens if there is a transient increase in server lag. Sorry! --Nehwyn (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, no problem. Thanks :) — NovaDog(contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! --Nehwyn (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First article templates[edit]

Thanks for helping with the new pages. Good templates to combine a CSD notice with a welcome message for a new user are Template:Nn-welcome and Template:Firstarticle. --Tikiwont 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! --Nehwyn 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Sander[edit]

Thanks for improving the Sander article, looks much better now. Nobody of Consequence 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Nehwyn 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BCE-CE / BC-AD[edit]

Hello Nehwyn, I found both notations in use on the Ancient Rome Article and went through quite a hassle to change it to the more neutral and accepted BCE-CE notation. Any reason why you believe it should be reverted? Schicchi 21:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you changed notations, the article used BC/AD exclusively, except for a single footnote. I see you've opened a discussion in the talk page for that article; let's continue this there. --Nehwyn 08:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My site[edit]

Please stop adding/deleting things to my talk page. It is getting annoying.Metal Head 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Unfortunately, protection templates can only be applied by admins. If you want your talk page protected, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thank you! --Nehwyn 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Did you mean to make this warning to Buaidh, whom I can't see having made any bad edits to that page, nor have you reverted them? --Golbez 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it wasn't me who reverted his edit, I just issued the warning. --Nehwyn 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Except that "Durango Rocks!" is a possible motto of Durango, and furthermore, we don't need those click-inline templates. Please Don't template the regulars; things like the test templates are for people who don't actually know better. He's already reverted the click-inline reversion, though not the motto; if he hadn't, I would now. --Golbez 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Very well then! --Nehwyn 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Depictions of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)[edit]

We had a discussion earlier. I agree. Removal of depictions of prophet Muhammad from his main page would be sufficient, considering Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. But what about that image from South Park? Is it kept there intentionally to make fun? Or those danish cartoons. I have serious reservations against them. What is your opinion? How does South Park image of the prophet relate to the subject in any way, other than making fun of the Prophet?

Unfortunately, such a useful encyclopedia is disregarded by many people as useless, by many Christians and Muslims. It is because of these "non-censorship of sensitive data" rules. Anyways, thanks for the help.


--Gauhar 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauharjk (talkcontribs)

Hello there. Since we started this discussion on your talk page, I will post my answer there, if that's okay. Also: please keep in mind that in order to sign your posts, you have to press the signature button every time you finish a comment. That way, the time will be automatically updated, and there will be links to your user and talk pages. Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I was reading the page protection rules and it seems that you only need to be an admin to add full protection. I added partial to stop vandalism.Metal Head (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but all types of protections are admin-only. If you require page protection, just drop a line at WP:RFP. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it would be wise to actually reply to people on their talk page instead of on your own.Metal Head (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you leave a message on someone's talk page, you should generally expect a reply there, unless you specifically ask that user to reply somewhere else. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person who replys on his own talk page.Metal Head (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reactions[edit]

I noticed that you described a recent block I made as a 'knee-jerk' reaction. From my point of view, that is a misrepresentation of what happened. If you're willing, I'd like a chance to explain my reasoning for the block in more detail, to explain why I made it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear your reasons, and I was going to add that the proper place to do that is the relevant discussion at WP:AN/I, but I just noticed you closed it. Given the fact that the incident was centred on an action of yours, closing it yourself falls very, very short of the conduct I expect from administrators. Please consider undoing the incident closure, and let an uninvolved administrator deal with it instead. --Nehwyn 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on ANI had served its purpose - to inform others about the block and ask whether it should be lifted early - and was drifting off into other subjects. It isn't a formal review system; my post on ANI was mainly a 'heads up', which I wouldn't have made at all except that Durova is the subject of a lot of attention.
Here's what led to the block. User talk:Ned Scott appeared on my watchlist yesterday when Ian left a vandalism warning there. By our definition, no good-faith edit is considered vandalism. I looked at Ian's comment on Durova's talkpage and left him a simple note - not a warning, just a note. I then checked the history of Durova's page, noticed the edit warring, and left a warning for Ian that he should stop reverting. Shortly after that, two other people left warnings about 3RR. Ian's response was less than civil. I warned him about our civility policy and went off to do other things.
Durova had answered Ian's question on his talk page before my first note. She made a later post on his talk page asking everyone to relax, and you made a post about tea. I accepted the offer to move on and forget about the matter. I also left a note for Ned Scott to avoid using the word 'troll'. Later I was in the middle of leaving a note for Ian agreeing the word 'troll' wasn't appropriate when I noticed that he had reverted again. This was despite being warned he had already violated 3RR, despite Durova's request, despite your comment, and despite his question already being answered. I blocked him at that point, and left a note on ANI since the matter related to Durova. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the explanation. I feel I've made my opinion clear on WP:AN/I already, but I'll sum it up in three points. 1) Deleting other people's comments from talk pages (other than one's own) is vandalism as far as I'm concerned, and reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR; therefore I deem the 3RR block abusive. 2) While I think Ian was right in protesting, indeed he was less than civil in his doing so, and that might have been reason enough for a block. 3) I realise an incident is not a formal review, but I still think that an admin should not close one related to himself, as an instance of the more general principle that admins should not use admin powers (including closing debates) in matters that involve them first-hand. Even should it be just closing a deletion debate in which they've taken part, all the more for an incident. --Nehwyn 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarindam7 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Nehwyn (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

About Save Our Seas[edit]

Answer Hello. I work for Save Our Seas foundation which is a NON PROFIT organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopalsos (talkcontribs)

This being a reply to a question I asked on that user's talk page, I'll reply there. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a placement student and wanting to write about my knowledge of the foundation and its aspects? About the other account being blocked, I have no idea why as I was a new member of wikipedia and was unaware of how to use it so I apologize about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopalsos (talkcontribs)

Please do not repost your comments on both talk pages; it gets confusion. Again, I'll reply where the rest of the conversation is. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My page has been marked for deletion, or something along the lines.[edit]

I'm contesting it as Lowesby is actually a dorm within the university of Leicester student campus, and the description of each person given was given by said person themself - not made up by me, the author.

Also, the description of the Lowesby dorm was given by the sub-warden currently residing. What changes are needed to be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaffing (talkcontribs) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Essentially, in order for the page to be kept, you have to demonstrate that particular dorm to be "notable", which means that it must meet the criteria outlined in the WP:N policy. Read that and see whether you can comply. Good luck! --Nehwyn (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of musician[edit]

Hey Nehwyn-- I'd like to request a removal of speedy deletion for the musician Giuseppe Cotteli. When the article was initially posted it was lacking referential information and appropriate facts, but it now adheres to the WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO guidelines. Further info can be found on the talk page for said article. I would appreciate your input if I missed anything so it can be speedily corrected. Thanks Nehwyn! --Goldwingedlion (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Under Wikipedia policies, we have to wait for an uninvolved admin to decide whether to confirm or decline speedy deletion; I cannot do it myself. If it is declined, I'll happily go over the sources and evaluate the article again. --Nehwyn (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
just visiting, but anyone except the author can remove a speedy if they think it unwarranted, per WP:CSD. It doesnt have to be an admin. Before I got the mop i did it regularly, and in fact requested the mop primarily so I could get rid right away of the 95% of the junk I found while rescuing the 5% that should have been speedied. Feel free to expand your scope of activities. DGG (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivo Siromahov[edit]

Hello :-) I was asked by my colleague from bulgarian wikipedia, User:Vivaefir to help her in solving the problem with the article on Ivo Siromahov. It was her newbie fault to first remove the templates, but I think that with the editions I make on the article, the reasons for AfD will disappear. Actually the bot's template was not accurate, there was no copyvio. And I do believe that the person meets WP:BIO criteria. I am still working on it but I think there is a progress, how do you think? :-) --Spiritia (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Right now, the absence of any reliable sources is the major problem, since it automatically means the article does not meet the WP:BIO criteria. Fixing that would be a major improvement. I've decided not to nominate the article for AfD for now because I think it can be improved. --Nehwyn (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, sources are very important, especially for the strongest statements. I'm still not sure I can find sources in English, but Bulgarian ones should do. The article also needed some neutralization on 1-2 places. I may need some more time to work on it, please be patient, I'll notify you when ready. --Spiritia (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, no hurry. --Nehwyn (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD of Stockland Rockhampton[edit]

I've now closed the Stockland Rockhampton AFD as nomination withdrawn. Thanks for participating. Best, — Rudget Contributions 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Because i was about to stubbify to remove the copyvio, which I have just done. I have also added the reference, and am about to fill in the article, and move it to the proper name. DGG (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice this message until today. (I was taken up in another conversation.) Let me know if I can help with anything. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vegas Partner Lounge[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Vegas Partner Lounge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegas Partner Lounge. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me posted. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Swinton circle[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Swinton circle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Mark Hasker (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Adrapes[edit]

Was the result of a typo. Was supposed to be short for Alvin Draper, the Matches-Malone style undercover alter-ego of Robin. Figured that such a character would be a fan of a band like Darkseid's Bitch. Just FYI! (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy TF[edit]

Hey, I noticed you have created or contributed to an Alchemy related topic. If you're interested, I'm trying to pull together a list of contributors who are interested in Alchemy for a Task Force. Nothing formal yet, just sending out feelers to other editors who are into the topic. If you're interested, let me know on my talk page. --Trippz (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Ive always been a healthly women and at 33 i got peritnitis. I was at deaths door. now its been about 9 months and im sick again this time the doctor said i have cirosis. could I get cirosis from peritnitis? ( (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Wood's despatch[edit]

I am reverting your merging page Wood's despatch to Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax. Because it was an important milestone in the history of India. Most often it is described to have laid the foundation of present system of education in India. It needs a separate article so that it can be added to categories related to Indian history and education. (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Italian wine[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox Italian wine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Nehwyn,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ - De Mauro Paravia entry on "Urbe"
  2. ^ - Entry about Rome on the official website of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre