User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 18

→

List of famous Ethnic-Americans in general

If you would be so kind as to tell me how one Ethnic-American group can be deleted, yet others are allowed to exist on Wikipedia? The lists of famous English-Americans, Finnish-Americans and German-Americans lists were deleted. It seems like a huge double standard to me. I wasn't convinced by the 'Deletion' arguements whatsoever. There were far more votes for 'Keep' than 'Delete' on the list of German-Americans page that you deleted. Yet, you will be hard pressed to find a more sourced page. There were something along the lines of 275 legit sources documented. I spent countless hours maintaining that page. If you are going to delete one, then delete them all, using the same logic and speed. I urge you to take a second look and if you still feel the same way, then use your adminstrative powers to delete every other Ethnic-American page, including African-American, Irish-American, lists, etc. Alexander lau 12:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Neil, when you get home, email the IAAF and ask if they would release a photo finish image (http://www.iaaf.org/insideIAAF/contacts/index.html). Neil ム 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Schlager

Why did you remove the article "List of German Schlager singers" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.177.86 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Legumes

Hi Neil. Are you sure it's a good idea to mention the whirlygig of doom on the administrators' noticeboard? It might send people hunting for it. Picaroon (t) 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mayleaf

Thanks for your speedy response. Kelpin 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just need to remove the rest of the spam ([1]) now! Neil ム 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bless you for taking on the chore of erasing that long trail of spam-slime. Wareh 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some of them - there are 3 left but I can't find the tourdates link on the pages (I'm probably being dim though). Kelpin 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The others aren't really spam, so they're fine. And as for cleaing the spam, I have a rollback button - it's almost like cheating ;) Neil ム 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes me feel better I thought I was just slow with a keyboard! Kelpin 15:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

O/t I see you are a fellow graduate of the University of Birmingham (albeit unless you were a child genius you were probably still at Primary School when I was there!). Small world! Kelpin 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Jerusalemite AfD

Hi there Neil! I'm just wondering if you could explain your closure of the AfD a little more. At least two editors were strongly against deletion and merger based on the rationale that Jerusalemite was a distinct term. Was your closure based on a head count or was it that you found the arguments pointing to the distinct meaning of the term unconvincing? Thanks in advance for your reply. Tiamat 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Both sides had good arguments; the crux of the matter was whether "Jerusalemite" meant more than just "someone from Jerusalem". The great majority of contributors (six to two) felt that it did not. Whilst AFD is not a headcount, and numbers are always overridden by policy, when both sides have valid arguments then it must come down to a judgement of straight consensus. Six to two is pretty strong. Neil ム 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I misunderestimated you

Neil, again I see that you are a man of many talents. I've got one for you:

A U.S. President invades a rogue state. A few months later he unfurls a banner on an aircraft carrier, announcing: "Mission Accomplished." PUNCHLINE: Four years and anywhere from 70,000 to 700,000 civilian deaths later the war is still going! What a laugher. Sickest joke I've heard in a decade.

Not to get too serious on you. Here's a funnier take on things. Marskell 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for taking an objective view. I must admit that I was surprised to find that my fictional names offended people. They are staying I am sorry to say; I don't interfere with other people's user pages and they won't with mine. The complaining users were not brave enough to confront me, so I tell you if you talk to them in future: this is English Language Wikipedia; and those names are fictional and mean nothing in English. There are some 6,000 languages in the world and anything one cares to mention in normal speech may have phonetically tabboo connotations in different languages. Is English your first language? Doesn't the religious term "Shi'ite" bring other things to mind? I removed the EU pipelinks, it changes nothing about how I feel; I know this is not a soapbox and if people have a problem with me, remember, nobody asked them to join the Wikipedia community, let them go elsewhere. Thank you Neil, I hope there will be no problems in the future. Evlekis 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Finnish Americans

I greatly object to your seemingly abrupt decision to delete the article List of Finnish Americans, despite the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans by well-established authors was clearly against such an action. --Drieakko 11:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the writing at the top of the page, you are entirely free to present your case for overturning any deletion close I make at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neil ム 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

re Haredim and Zionism and my block of User:Yidisheryid

Hi, thanks for your note. I blocked Yidisheryid per a report at WP:AIV, and while reviewing the post Final Warning edits I noted they had reverted to a previous edit of theirs and so rolled back the edit as an admin action prior to issuing the block. I have had no other interaction on the article. The block is one hour and I have suggested to Yidisheryid they participate in a discussion once the block expires. I presume that (one of the other) party to the dispute is User:Yossiea, who issued the warning and report. I can unblock Yidisheryid if you wish, or issue Yossiea with a similar block for bad faith warning and reporting (this way they may find common cause in being peeved with an admin.) I will watch for your reply. LessHeard vanU 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think leaving things as they are is fine. Yossiea was entreating Yidisheryid to use the talk page, and he was refusing to, instead, trenchantly edit warring. The hour block was entirely appropriate. I've protected the article in question, given them three days to discuss things, explained to Yossiea that if people disagree with edits then there can't be a consensus, told Yidisheryid to discuss things on the talk page or he'll be blocked for tendentious editing, and hopefully things will resolve themselves. Neil ム 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, it looks like the protection is worn off but the template is still there. In addition, yidisheryid is still pushing his POV without discussing things on the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

58.185.47.84

Hi there. I usually report people who consistently delete speedy deletion tags without going to the talk page as vandals (58.185.47.84 hasn't been the first, and won't be the last) - that's my interpretation of having user warning templates ranging from uw-speedy1 to uw-speedy4.

By the way: that user is also removing the AfD tags.

Anyway, thanks for the tip on AFD. Regards, -- Iván Sánchez ^(talk) 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't go straight for the last warning template - that IP is also Dpgz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you check the history, Dpgz removed the speedy tags four times, then switched to anonimous, then I put the uw-speedy4 warning in 58.185.47.84's talk page.

I guess that I should have put the sockpuppeteer templates as well... -- Iván Sánchez ^(talk) 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A semi-interested third party...

Just as a question regarding the blocks of DrBat and Asgardian, and not arguing that the pair didn't need some sort of sanction, but at what point does prior history come into play with block durations?

The reason I ask is that, in looking at the logs, DrBat has a string of 24hr 3RR/Edit waring blocks in late `05 and early `06 and Asgardian has a cycle of them for this type of activity from early through mid '07 with the last one being 31hrs.

Looking at these, the 24hr duration may be viewed as the same old same old, or a step back instead of disapproval of a repeated bad behavior. Or am I seeing this wrong?

Thanks - J Greb 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to emphasise to the pair of them not they are both equally to blame, and as both of them are convinced they are right and are unwilling to reach any kind of compromise, they will continue to be blocked for an equal (albeit increasing) amount of time every time they edit war over the same darn things, until they are willing to compromise. I didn't want to take past history into account, as otherwise the blocks may not then have been of the same length, which would have negated the intent of treating them equally. Neil ム 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Firstly, thanks for the kind words; they are much appreciated. Secondly, the more eyes the better. Since I too have my own personal opinions as to the matter, having someone else to ensure that policy is followed can only help. Thanks! -- Avi 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Normally I don't speak like that on wiki, but I had a feeling that Yudel would respond better if he knew that I have a similar background to him, and speaking that polyglot of Yiddish, English, Aramaic, and Hebrew known as Yeshivish is basically the quickest and most efficient way to present my "bona fides" as it were. Only someone who spent years or decades learning in a Haredi yeshiva would be comfortable in that talk. Be that as it may, I think I can tone it down now. Thank you for the comment! -- Avi 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So now Avi has evidently achieved his goal to confuse other gentile sysops from understanding the issue at hand, let me try to clear thinks up, Avi has agreed to delete that line that a particuer group is supportive of Zionism, but only after a week, i ask him please don't wait if we agree that this is unsourced material that can be viewed by some people as slanderous it should be deleted right away and never been add there without sourcing, Avi evidently dodges the point, since his POV is that it is not slanderous and negative but he does not deny the fact that by some people it is negative, so in essence it does not belong there while unsourced. All I am asking is to delete this one line which is a double header to a section and completely unexplained with any text underneath it so it is also an empty header, 'Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel i have no other reqwest and other desire to edit out that artice so stop acting as if i am being holden back from adding stuff unsourced, Niel i beg u don't accuse me of this like u did in saying for Avi that he was right to ask me for sources, i never ever added stuff in there just deleted unsourced material which is negative and slanderous by some people and should never have been added there, Avi blocked it without any edit war in process, and subsequently we see clearly what was his motive in bloking this article, now he became the invested of that article by not letting others delete this line, Niel if u don't want to help don't give him encouragement on his abuse of power, when u clearly say that u don't understand the issue.--יודל 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

Can you delete this for me I used it for a merge attempt of mine and now i have no need for it. Oh and if you're curious the merge was successful.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can just tag them with {{db-userreq}}, though. Neil ム 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks I don't know there was a speedy for something like that.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Toolserver Interwiki

Hi,

As per your request on Meta, the Wikimedia Toolserver is now accessable using the tools: prefix. Many thanks,

Thunderhead 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thank you very much. Neil ム 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you were that last Admin involved...

Just a heads up with regard to your blocks of DrBat and Asgardian from Sept 3... As per the history and this comparison, Asgardian just blanked reverted the article to his preferred state. The last last one he placed just before the block. I might also suggest talking to User:Steve block since he had a similar problem with Asgardian in late June, early July (part of the reason for my question above...) - J Greb 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this extends beyond the Vision (comics) article, as shown by this revert, this one, this one and this one, all by User:Asgardian fresh off his block. Pairadox 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Marvel vs. DC looks like a slow building edit war. Asguardian making 3 edits since Aug 31 (1 removing almost 80% of the article content and 2 reverting to that state on Sept 5 and 6) and 2 by Sperril reinserting the info and asking for a full hashing of it on the talk page. Thanos shows sings of extremely minor edits being "allowed" from Asgardian's Sep 3, 2007 version. And Odin (Marvel Comics) is back to his Aug 31 version. - J Greb 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neil, could you please review this situation? Thanks. - J Greb 05:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - was away for the weekend, and missed it when I came back amongst all the other messages on my talk page. I'll take a look now. Neil ム 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks for taking another look. - J Greb 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the speedy deletion?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The International Society for Professional Innovation Management. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.What on earth are you doing deleting this page? On what grounds? This page documented the background and purpose of an international not-for-profit association and so is justified for inclusion on Wikipedia! Please restore it immediately! There is no copyright violation - I know because I write the ISPIM materials!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List_of_German_Americans. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Since you were an Admin involved in this...

I would like to bother u and ask u to clean my name, i do know why he is accusing me of those thinks, and i understand his approach, but since smoke is a sign of fire, i beg u please help me correcting my record[2]. Thanks--יודל 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

An article that you have commented on in a speedy deletion process, Mark Warner (Canadian politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician). Thank you. --Canam1 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

Neil, just a quick note to say how disappointed I was to see Vkontakte.ru disappear. I wasn't watching and missed the AfD. I don't spend enough time being a beaurocrat on Wikipedia to remember the precise rules, but I thought in an AfD there must be a consensus to delete if it is to be deleted????

Anyway, WP processes aside, when I first created this article it was so people interested in social networking websites and notable peers to Facebook would have a starting point to read about it in English. (I have no connection to any vaguely related company -- and am Aussie and don't speak Russian). Obviously as the largest contemporary of facebook and 4th most popular Russian site it is notable. I think the deletion of the article or the questioning of its notability is a direct result of the fact that monolingual English speakers don't know about it!

Are you able to help get this article back? Thanx Donama 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Donama. You'll have to request this at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Yes, there must be a consensus to delete an article for it to be deleted, but if the people who argue for "keep" do so for bad reasons, then their arguments carry less weight, and the consensus becomes to delete. As there was not one good reason given in the discussion to keep the article, it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more on this). I would recommend asking via DRV for the article to be undeleted (but not for the decision overturned - honestly, it was the correct close) and give some reasons why (but provide references for the claims); use WP:WEB as a start for reasons. Neil ム 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hareidim and Zionism redux

Hello, Neil.

I have been trying to apply wiki policy evenly and fairly to the article, and am now being subject to what I perceive are personal attacks from User:Yidisheryid‎. A brief glance at his last twenty or so edits, in my opinion demonstrates that this person is less interested in the project and more interested in pushing a POV. I've left a warning on his talk page (together with what I feel is a yeoman's attempt at cordial discusion), and I am loathe to take action directly if he persists, because of appearances of abuse. Can you do me a favor and give me your opinion as to the merits of my complaint and then your opinion as to whether I should bring this up on WP:ANI? I really do not like being accused of abuse, lying, and other such actions when I think I'm doing my best to be impartial. Thank you. -- Avi 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Avi. Yidisheryid's comments aren't personal attacks. They are not particularly civil, but he does apologise at the bottom of Talk:Haredim and Zionism, and at this point it might be best to try and move on - things do seem to be improving, and he seems to be starting to ework with the other editors a little, which should be encouraged. I will ask him to be nicer, though, and perhaps he will listen. Neil ム 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not see that apology, but I do dislike accusations of willful misabuse when I am trying my best to balance opposite POV's. I am always open to constructive criticism, and if you think I have misused sysop privs, please let me know. Thank you. -- Avi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraham (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, definitely no abuse of privileges, sysop or otherwise. Neil ム 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lock due to frequent vandalism

Hi Neil,

I would like to have the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_guitar locked for users who are not signed in, as at least 90% of the activity on that page is vandalism by anonymous users. How do I proceede with that?

Best regards

Sorenw 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

I'm doing fine except I'm not very active on wikipedia

Sorenw 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel Comics)

Hi, Neil. I saw your warning at User talk:Asgardian about his continual edit-warring at Vision (Marvel Comics). Two editors, independently, with explanations in edit summaries, are being forced to constantly monitor and revert one of Asgardian's non-consensus edits, and at least one other editor has to keep reverting a second.

We've tried talking to him on that article's page, to no avail. If you know anything about Asgardian's history, you know he's tendentious and relentless. I beseech your help. Thank you for anything you might do or suggest. --Tenebrae 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice Needed Please

The Barclays Bank article has attracted some vandalism recently, I can't touch it until late this evening as I'm already on 3 reverts and another editor has reverted 1 piece of vandalism there late yesterday. Its coming from anon ips who actually work for Barclays Bank! (Presumable disgruntled current ips). I was thinking about posting a warning on their talk page if they do it again to say that the Barclays IT Dept will be informed if it happens again, but wasn't sure if this was against any wikipedia policies, so wanted to check before I do. Any thoughts? Kelpin 06:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vision and blocks

Thought I'd offer some positive reinforcement : )

The blocks involved would appear to be a good idea. (And I like how you at least tried for equality in the initial blocks.)

The article (Vision (comics)) has been the site of a large amount of edit warring. Same for Absorbing Man; Radioactive Man (comics); Whizzer; (and to a lesser extent, other Marvel comics-based articles, such as Mjolnir (Marvel Comics); and Mephisto (comics)).

Your comments about WP:OWN hit the nail on the head. I'm beginning to think that some article bans may be in order. What do you think? - jc37 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I come back from a road trip and see this. I think you jumped the gun. There were comments in Talk on what was changed, and some of the changes were minor. If you had really looked you would see I am happy for changes to be made to articles I've edited - I just target POV, unsourced claims etc etc. Ownership? Hardly. Go check out the Living Tribunal and see how I kept a modification but simply molded it to the Wiki way. By the by, take a look at what Odin, or Thanos or the Squadron Supreme article was like before I jumped on board.

Asgardian 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion nominations for List of XX Americans

Hi,

User:Leuko, acting sincerely and within policy I'm sure, has just listed about 45 "List of XXXX Americans" articles, all listed now at the delete/sort page for ethnic groups. I think this is problematic, so I put up a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Maybe they'll tell me it's nothing to worry about or maybe it will all blow over or be decided before you get this message, but please take a look. Your input would probably be useful. Thanks. Noroton 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Matrixism

Just thought I would let you know that Phil Welch unilaterally deleted a well referenced section on Matrixism from "The Matrix (series)" article. A lot of people worked very hard on that section/article. TR166ER 10:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been restored. Neil ム 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil has reverted it again. TR166ER 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup

Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nemanja Vidic

Can you please stop reverting the part about Nemanja Vidic scoring his fourth league goal for United against Everton; there are hundred's of football player articles on wikipedia that are frankly rubbish, full of un-referenced rubbish stuff that need expansion and cleanup. Vidic is a centre-back, he's not going to score a lot of goal in his career, all of his goals were headers that were vital to United winning the games in which he scored...Plus the goal against everton was the winning goal and he got the man of the match award for his performance. Not encyclopedic? There are million other wikipedia articles that are full of non-encyclopedic stuff, and no one is cleaning them up...cheers---MitsuFreak 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

trigger-happy bot

I'm a bit rusty on the policy concerning bots, so here's a little quiz... Is there a page where users will discuss what happened during the trial period of a bot before approving it for good? I'd like to make sure this one doesn't get through (not in its speedy deletion tagging mode, anyway). Also, was it Osama's responsibility to shut the bot off after 50 edits? And who is to blame for the fact that it didn't "do what it said on the tin" (tagging for speedy deletion was not mentioned)? I think the owner's been a little bit cheeky with this bot, but then again he doesn't seem to understand much english, so maybe it's a communication error. Ta. yandman 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OsamaKBOT 5. It's been unblocked because "the owner was informed", bots seem to have some magic get out where unblocking without consulting with the blocking admin. Neil ム 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for adoption

Hello. My user name is ILikePikachu. Wknight94 recommended adoption for this eternally blocked user. I need to know what time zone you live in, the closer to UTC-6, the better. Thanks, 72.161.149.136 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)(ILikePikachu)

Request informal help

Hi, Neil. If you have a second, we could really use your help. If you go to Talk:Hulk (comics)#Destruction debate, you'll see several editors who together have tried to reason with a single overzealous fan. He's exhibiting the kind of single-minded POV that I'm sure you've seen with some editors, and completely disregarding at least four other editors' consensus. I'm afraid things might be getting heated, on my part as much as anyone's, and I'm hoping a calm head will help. Thank you for stopping by if you can. --Tenebrae 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell Tenebrae, this dispute is over a few minor edits from David A. He seems willing to compromise - I note his last edit did not have the parts you were particularly against. Are you equally willing? Given I don't know much about any Marvel comics other than the awesome Great Lakes Avengers, I can only assume you want me to either mediate or take some kind of admin action. There's nothing to mediate unless you or David appear unable to work together, and there's definitely no admin action required at this point (he has done nothing to be blocked for, and there's no call for protection). Neil ム 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. The edits are certainly minor in number of words; it's just that he keeps making the same POV/NOR edits that at least four editors disagree with. In any case, I do very much appreciate your taking the time to have a look and give informal input.

I liked Great Lakes Avengers myself -- funny stuff. You'd probably like Keith Giffen's late '80s/early '90s Justice Leagues. Cheers! --Tenebrae 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OsamaKBOT

Hi Neil, Please Don't block bot who doesn't work at the time of blocking, and please disable AutoBlock when you block any another bot. Thanks.--OsamaK 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi OsamaK. You will find your bot gets blocked less if, when it is approved for 50 edits, you run it for 50 edits, and not a few thousand. Neil ム 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Stco23

Hi, yeah I must admit that was the intended result, I didn't want to only give him 24 hours (or he could just sit and wait). That way he had to make an unblock request. I intended to keep a closer eye on him but I got a crazy day at work. Thanks for handling it! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neil. I was unblocked this morning in my area by my blocker. I hope to not make the same mistake with administrators next time. Will talk some other time. Bye for now.--Stco23 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Skatewalk

Hello Neil. Just in case, be aware of these users; might be sockpuppets too: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 20 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian

Asgardian came back from his expired ban and immediately reverted Marvel vs. DC to the version he's been insisting on. His behavior doesn't seem to have changed one bit. What bugs me about the situation is that he isn't an outright vandal. He seems to be well meaning and sincere in his belief that his edits are the "best" for the article. He's also willing to accept minor edits, as long as they don't fundamentally change "his" version. I think he simply doesn't understand the intended scope of Wikipedia. The frustration is that he's unwilling to discuss a compromise on the talk page. His only contribution to discussion is to explain why his version is better, and everyone else is wrong. I'm perfectly willing to work with him on making changes to fix POV and "fanboyism" in the article. Anyway, could you please look into this for me again? Thanks! Sperril 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and Asgardian making one edit you don't agree with is not going to get me to block him for you. I note it's not the same edits he made back on the 5th September. I have suggested to him, however, that he may have better joy editing a section at a time or somesuch, as his edits are fairly wide-ranging. Normally, I applaud that kind of boldness, but as it is clear you and a few other editors will just revert all his edits, rather than just specific parts (becaus it would take more effort than clicking undo?), I've suggested he edit a piece at a time. Have you considered your reaction to his efforts is not helping him improve as an editor? We could all be nicer (myself included). Neil ム 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly the same edit he made on the 5th of September. He has edited the page twice today and I think you were looking at the wrong one. The only difference was he also included a line about the Marvel Trading Card Game which I consider to be good information and kept in my latest version. Here's the difference between Sept. 5 and today. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvel_vs._DC&diff=159075085&oldid=155820466 . Either way, I'll try to re-engage him on the article talk page. If he wants to explain his problems with the old version and go through it piece by piece with me, I'm all for it. Thanks for looking into it for me! Sperril 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted. It was also not a blind revert. I've retained the card section, and have also pointed out that the version I've worked on has the appropriate titles and caption for the picture. I'll try and expand the story, but as I've indicated in Talk, a close look reveals it is a very subjective and "fan" orientated retelling of the story.

Asgardian 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Hold on. I've left a comment here and on the Talk page and in both cases have stated I will pad out the story. The other version drops all the titles, captions etc. I am trying for the middle ground, but the version I've been pushing for has all the necessary trimmings, not the other one. Heck, the picure on the other version isn't even sourced. I've entered the discussion and offered a rationale, and promised to expand the story, which I will. Once again, it's the POV. A close read shows it nearly every sentence. Not being obstinate here. Really!

Asgardian 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the help on Hate Monger.

Asgardian 11:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Skatewalk has asked you to reconsider

User:Skatewalk has made his case on his discussion page and has asked you to reconsider. Please look at it. By the wat I don't know anything about Scotland b/ I know something about the Scottish Rite which came from France, go figure.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed he was the same person. I would imagine he didn't want to lose the Skatewalk sock account because it had a lot of edits on it. Neil ム 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion requested

I know you've basically recused yourself from further Admin action regarding Asgardian, but I would like you suggestion on who/where to refer an issue to.

Specifically in this case is Whizzer. The article went through an RfC which Jc37 over saw. After the results of that were put in place, Asgardian repeatedly edited the article to his own tastes, in spite of the RfC result. The last such edit was on June 20.

He just did a blanket revert to that version, again over writing the RfC results. A synopsis can be found at Talk:Whizzer#Today's edit.

Thanks, - J Greb 18:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rescue

Greetings, just a quick query, the Template:Rescue has now got a yellow border, I know this may sounds picky, but I chose the serious tag because what is more serious that an article that contains encyclopedic topics being deleted? Style does not really handle it as we (the Article Rescue Squadron) are not editing the layout of the document, but adding citations and sources to prevent it from being deleted mistakenly. I am refraining from editing the Template due to other issues, but could you please reconsider your edit? Fosnez 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. It's not style, it's a content issue template, so it should be the same as {{unreferenced}} - orange. Neil ム 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, its so nice to have a civil conversation for a change. Fosnez 10:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A little unrelated, but I noticed this - everyone is allowed to post on the administrator noticeboards. That's what they are for - to raise incidents that require admin attention. Neil ム 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know, I was a little cranky then (but trying my absolute best to remain civil), I was unsure as to the "legality" of responding to your own incident, but thanks for clearing it up for me (Hopfully it won't happen again any time soon) Fosnez 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PAPERTRIGGER

Why did you remove this from RFCN and claim no attempt was made to talk to him? See his talk page, I did put a notice there, User_talk:PAPERTRIGGER. If anything, this should be archived, not removed.Rlevse 11:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you gave him just a few hours. Neil ム 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but you totally removed the talk on RFCN, you should have boxed it for closing. So I closed it.Rlevse 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussions only tend to be closed if the discussion has ended. If it should not have been started in the first place, just removing it is usually okay. But no big deal. Neil ム 13:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Durin

I will look into it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

George Foreman Grill

I don't object the move, as nom-- but please find someone to close the RM discussion please? It's weird that the RM discussion is still open even the article is moved. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, done. Neil ム 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

R's RfA

Hello Neil. I understand your frustration but still, retaliation like this is unlikely to be helpful. Let the bureaucrats sort it out. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are, as always, damnably right. Neil ム 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you both regard me as one of the prime offenders. I have tried not to respond to opposers (or neutrals) on this RfA simply for the sake of responding, but only when there is a new piece of information to be offered, or a genuine follow-up question to be asked. I am sorry if the input from me and R's other supporters comes off like sniping, as it is assuredly not meant that way; but I suppose I am not completely objective as I watch my nomination fail for the third time now, with some of the opposition (not from the two of you, I hasten to add) striking me as being on thinly reasoned grounds. Newyorkbrad 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not one of the prime offenders, Brad ... this badgering of "opposers" when we expect little or no explanation at all from "supporters" is getting worse. At least your requests for clarification are productive and polite. Neil ム 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA comment

I wanted to avoid mentioning it at the time, but was it really necessary to say this? Acalamari 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? Neil ム 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to refer to someone else's oppose as "trolling", no matter how much you disagree with them. Thanks. Acalamari 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparta reference

Hello Neil. Could you please talk some sense into Tazmaniacs on the Talk:Nazism page about that Hitler-Sparta parallel he keeps removing despite it being sourced? Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:28 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Satelliteamd

Satelliteamd is not a pure vandalism account. The account is associated with Howie Nave and was attempting to clean up that article. So, there may be conflict of interest, but not simple vandalism. I have been working on the article and am engaged in email correspondence with the subject's attorney. Fred Bauder 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Neil ム 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)