User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Template:Test4-n

Your recent change to Template:Test4 has caused Template:Test4-n to no longer work. I think you need to update the redirect on Template:Test4-n as well. - Big Brother 1984 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks. It's already been fixed. Proto::► 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some requests (the last couple of paragraphs of this thread) for an admin to return test4 and test4-n to working templates rather than redirects. Thought it might be easiest for everyone if you were willing to revert yourself... Kafziel ^Talk 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I wish people would make their mind up ... Proto::► 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou proto for unblocking me the user Mangojuice was very unfair and biased and did not do the same treatment for sikh-history. There are many people who are unfair in this world who treat others in harsh treatment and let others go with no harsh treatment. Mangojuice is not fair wikipedian--Sikh 1 13:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay. Mangojuice perhaps was a little overzealous, but he didn't do it out of evil motives or being unfair. Your actions weren't worth a block, but please not that we do ask editors to be civil at all times, and it would be great if you can keep that up. Proto::► 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Proto -- (first time someone's referred to my talk page clause, I was wondering if anyone noticed it). I don't necessarily disagree here, but in my view Sikh 1 was out of control. He's now removed the original warning from his talk page, and is accusing Sikh-history of trolling. Since you overturned my block, I won't reinstate it, but it's up to you to monitor the situation now. Mangojuice^talk 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussions at Prohibitions in Sikhism. Tell me whether I am using verifiable facts or not? Also please note the language being used against me. See Sikh1's talk page too. I think it is out of order what Sikh1 and HariSingh are saying about me. Where can I complain?--Sikh-history 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Proto

Section removed. My talk page is not the appropriate location for content disputes. Proto::► 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanothers ref desk comment

Hi Proto. The Israeli discussion on the ref desk today got seriously out of hand. I absolutely think Justanother should have reconsidered his comment, and written what he meant to say, rather than edit warring to restore it. But I also think you could have paused to discuss the issue rather than warring back and threatening a block. It was a very tense situation that I think would have gone better if everyone had felt they had the time to consider their words before submitting them. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my comment above, I think a block threat was unnecessary because Justanother didn't intend to make a personal attack; he just didn't realize, in the heat of the moment, how what he was writing looked. -- SCZenz 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are, as always, damnably, right. Proto::► 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Move

May I ask you to move this [1] as per this [2] in the good old spirit of camaraderie? Thanks a million. --Poeticbent  talk  21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You could have done it yourself, as the chosen destination was a redlink (so didn't require admin access). But never mind - done. Proto::► 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kings Of Chaos article

Article deletion was discussed here Kings Of Chaos is there by any chance I can retain a copy of the original information that was on the article in order to be able to "glorify" it again? Snoop0x7b did an attempt to clean it up after the arguments between either side about it's deletion, but the form of which the article was then left may be considered useable to do a little more proper editing in order for it to become it's own again & be worthy to comply with source referencing without the need (at least not strict over-looking) to be monitored. If it can be recovered, I'd like a copy to emailed to me at ancientblueflame@gmail.com if possible. Thankyou for your time to read and please consider this. Tytrox 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and request this. Proto::► 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records

I have just finished reviewing this article, which you nominated for GA status. I am pleased to say that I have passed the article according to the GA criteria. See Talk:Mr. Lady Records for my full comments. Congratulations on making such considerable improvements to a stub rescued from AfD. Best wishes, WjBscribe 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Proto::► 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a review which you may find here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to deal with this...

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive197#GrahameKing.2C_again_.28previous_incidents_attended_by_Proto.29

...please let me know. Thank you.

What´s the next step for me if GrahameKing refuses to enter RfC about this deleted block of sourced text?. IMO all this GrahameKing´s behaviour is caused by this block of text. Randroide 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was willing to enter RFC? Proto::► 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well read this and draw your own conclusions (watch out the reference about an email to Arthur Janov). Frankly, I do not know what´s next if GrahameKing refuses mediation. I tried Wikipedia:Third opinion and this is what I got. I do not know if this is a warrant allowing me to reinsert the disputed "Conocer" stuff. What do you think?.

A note: I suggest you to copy-paste this discussion at Talk:Primal therapy. Randroide 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reinsert it. Community consensus is clearly behind this. Continue to press for mediation, however, as it is obviously required. Proto::► 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Proto. Thank you for your attention. Randroide 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto wrote:

I'm not sure what you want to happen here, Randroide. Has Graham done anything since I warned him not to? Proto::► 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All the four points presented here are a posteriori since your February 1st warning [3].

I want:

• A community verdict about the validity (or lack of it) of my "Conocer" source [4] about Arthur Janov. Maybe the Wikipedia:Third opinion provided me with that [5]. I am not sure about this point..

• A serious warning to GrahameKing about the consequences of disruptive behaviour.

Randroide 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent sites 2

Given that the article's endorement was upheld at Deletion Review here, shouldn't its copy which you moved here also be deleted? Other than adding three internal links (while still keeping the external links), nothing's changed. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Proto::► 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Thanks for the attention to deathly hallows. Unfortunately you left out a bit in the middle. While I must admit, my amendment is not as clear on a second reading as I thought it was, Rowling's follow up remark doesn't make sense unless the reader understands that Radcliffe was puzzled, because Dumbledore is supposed to be dead. I don't like quoting too much, which is why I slightly paraphrased the middle bit, but maybe it has to have his exact remark in it.

I also screwed up the ref. Honest guv, I did have it right once, but I copied the format from the other ref, changed it, then likely screwed up a save somewhere. As I didn't have a ref list on the page I posted, I didn't see it.

Try this one:

• Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead", when asked by Salman Rushdie and others at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. Rowling answered the same question three times, each time with increasing conviction.. However, on the set of Order of the phoenix film, She remarked; "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble". When asked by Daniel Radcliff, "But isn't he dead?", she explained; "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ...".

Sorry this is a lot of hassle. Sandpiper 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There, done. Personally, I think there is way, way too much speculation about the seventh book, particularly as it'll all be removed in a few months anyway, but what the hey. Proto::► 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nx 10's of millions of people interested in this subject. It's very quiet now, but there is a ridiculous anount of stuff pops up on the page under normal circumstances. Well, anyway, it makes a change from real life. I was a bit slow getting back to you because I just chased a burglar down the street. He was wearing my boots! Thanks for the editing. Sandpiper 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained that better, as I don't know if you are a fan. Rowling's success is because she has created one story in 7 volumes. People are hooked, and want to guess how it will finish. As you say, in 6 months the fun will be over, so right now is everyone's last chance to do some detective work and guess how it will end before it does. That is why it is important to people. Sandpiper

I've read all the books, and enjoyed them, don't know if I'd say I was a big fan though. I agree that guessing what happens next is great fun... just that there's a million websites for that, and an encyclopaedia probably isn't one of them. But all the guessing will be gone in a few months anyway, so it doesn't bother me. Proto::► 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had noted that, too. some people are very serious, and impatient. It depends what wiki wants to be: whether it really wants to be an encyclopedia of everything, or whether it intends to make deliberate gaps in its coverage. Sandpiper 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopaedia of everything, as not everything is encyclopaedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It's not the place for unsourced speculation or speculation sourced from fansites - this is original research. Proto::► 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I read all that. That's just rules created by those editors who like to make rules. To argue that not everything is encylcopedic is a rather narrow POV. As a member of the public what I want is a source which will tell me what I want to know. As I said, it just means that wiki chooses to define itself not to include certain things. Sandpiper 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My reply to your post: How's this link any different,...?

I replied here.

--GordonWatts 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hosting a game on my user page.

If have the time go to my user page and see what the game is.Sam ov the blue sand 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey, Proto. I saw your oppose and thought it was strange that you think I'm not qualified for adminship simply because of my signature? Is there some other reason? I would gladly shorten my sig, however, if you would consider changing your position. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this?: P.B. Pilhet

Much better. I expect admins to be easy to communicate with. A 250 character signature is not a good communication aid as the longer the signature, the more a discussion gets clogged up with unnecessaries. Proto::► 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I did have a lot of code in my signature. I've shortened it to the above for you. Happy Editing! -- P.B. Pilhet 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving to support, Proto! -- P.B. Pilhet 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Proto ► 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GordonWatts

He doesn't give up. His insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk · contribs), who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.

P.S.: I'm leaving this message on a few other admins' pages (JzG, Musical Linguist, JoshZ), and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I got your message and replied here.--GordonWatts 12:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've had enough of his foolishness, so your input is requested at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heading Change

You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I read it

I treat my Talk page as a post-it board. After I read it and don't need it anymore, I get rid of it.

OverlordQ 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians born in 1989

Yes. You see, some people in that category are still under 18. 1ne 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Glossary_of_Canadian_English_words

You deleted this on Dec 4th 2006, and put a "wi" template in it's place.. on Dec 30th, someone manually copied the page that you had transwiki'd back from Wiktionary (it still has a Wiktionary category).. I'm not sure if this sort of recreation is considered against the rules here.. I have no particular interest in the fate of this page, but I figured I'd mention it.. The article is now the subject of a Mediation Cabal request for other reasons..

I'm a Wiktionary admin, and someone manually transwiki'd this new copy back to Wiktionary tonight (tonight's copy has since been deleted on Wiktionary).. This is what got me looking at the page here.. fwiw.. --Versageek 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a recreation of deleted material, that is indeed very probably going to see it deleted (but I'll need to see what the MedCab are doing first). Proto ► 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Randroide

Sorry to bother you, but i am privately advocating for a user who believes this user's actions are out of line. After looking at his contributions, I noticed that his recent edit to Toyota Corona was unusual to say the least. Geo. Talk to me 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Proto ► 12:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking revert of page move by null edit

Perhaps you'd be the right person to take a look into such an edit recently (details at Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking revert of move). :-) — Instantnood 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why me? Proto ► 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You took steps to undo the mess last time. :-) — Instantnood 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute. You may want to try WP:RM. Proto ► 12:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei tries to make it look like a content dispute. The key issue I brought to AN/I was the null edit he made. — Instantnood 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Natl1's RFA

Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of supercars deletion

• Was this you? why was it deleted? Nobody could come up with a coherent reason to delete most of the historical list, the real problem was the list of disputed supercars, which was only a small part of the article. In future at least have the courtesy to fill in a reason in the summary. Greglocock 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The deletion didn't even go through a standard procedure because most of us who care about the list hadn't been notified. Recover the list before its deletion, or you will be reported. --Mato Rei 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see the links at the top of this page, and go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Proto ► 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars OK , I found the discussion, that's pretty evil, none of the editors of that page looked to have participated in the AFD. In future please make sure that you fill in the reason for deletion and a link back to the AfD discussion. That would have saved an hour of my time. Greglocock 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The log for the page - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=List_of_supercars - quite clearly showed why the article was deleted. As you (or someone else editing anonymously) saw fit to override the community consensus and recreate the article, I have had to redelte it and protect it from recreation. If you wish to query the decision, again, Wikipedia:Deletion review. Proto ► 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Don't make unfounded assertions. I did not recreate the page. Your use of the word keeps in that log is a very poor choice of word that makes your behaviour sound more reasonable than it is. Once is not 'keeps'. I note that in the deletion review that at least one person has made an overturn comment, that sounds sensible.Greglocock 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I did not recreate the page either and still cannot accept the deletion. Those who think the list should be deleted do not really care about it. But the people those worked on that list do not frequently visit the page. You only gave us about one week to make the desicon despite more coming keeping wish. Like it on not, you have made a wrong decision. Time will tell. --Mato Rei 05:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony John Bailey - deletion

No way could you attribute the "Keep" votes to the same person!! Certainly not any of the following: Kyaa the Catlord (see his/her other contributions - way beyond just this issue), nor TheQuandry who is too obviously an American wikipedian; nor RebSkii who clearly has an Asian focus, nor myself, a mother of five to whom I guarantee you Bailey is unknown let alone unrelated! Give me a break! I'm from Northumberland, now in London, but have never met Bailey, and have no connection with him. However, I do think that someone like him has already demonstrated his notability to several heads of states, Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, media, and heads of companies and royal houses, as well as major religious leaders has demonstrated his notability far more than the wiki-skeptics can understand. It's is a sign of the weakness of the wiki-world that his PR background is now held against him to refute his notability. I bet you none of the wiki-skeptics on this issue have ever come near to that kind of access, notability, honours, nor impact on good causes!! Shame on you all!!!Tricky 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But none of the "wiki-skeptics" are trying to have articles on themselves. Proto ► 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Partly untrue: that's precisely what many of them do on their user-pages! And you missed the point on Bailey's notability - even if many or most of the original references lead back to his company Eligo and its related or supported websites. Have you not allowed bias to prevail in this debate? If anything, your deletion, in this case, was premature - the article could indeed have been further improved (some of my own queries were not resolved, e.g. on the possible COI b/w his Gambian ambassadorial appointment and his British FPC role), nonetheless, a sufficient number of independent references to his notability were verifiable and provided, in addition to his meeting several criteria (knighthoods, national orders awards, strategic impact on relations between religious leaders, world leaders, patronage of parliamentary lobbies, etc.)Tricky 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the support on my RfA, and also for the advice! I guess I got a bit defensive, as I have put a lot of constructive energy and passion into Wikipedia over the last year, and it was a slap in the face for some of my peers to basically conclude that I could not be trusted. At the time, the vote was about 5:4, so I was rather upset at the situation. I will heed your advice and just let this play out (but obviously answering any supplemental questions that may come up). Thanks again, Andrwsc 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Um Whatca Up to?

Heh, are you wondering if recent changes patrollers would try and revert you based on these kind of edit summaries :P? Odd...very odd.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When I edit my own user page, I like to, um, express myself. And it keeps the RC elves on their toes ;) Proto ► 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

Can you delete this for me? I've finally given up now.Sam ov the blue sand 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sorry it didn;t work out. Proto ► 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Proto, well after the second time I looked for a new source but couldn't find anything useful, so I decided to focus my time on more important matters than an article going no where.Sam ov the blue sand 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationality in the UK

You (and other nationalistic users) keep bringing this argument about nationality being Welsh/Scottish/English/etc. These are not nationalities. Nationality is British in these instances. Why is there a British Nationality Law article, but no Welsh Nationality Law? Your argument has no basis in fact and very few precedents in established (encyclopaedic) practice. Frankly, I don't really think it holds water, although I am pessimistic as to the chances of convincing an increasingly nationalistic generation of this. (For the record, I am not from the UK, nor old.) laddiebuck 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are exhibiting a rank failure to understand what everyone is trying to tell you. The United Kingdom is made up of constituent nations. These nations are England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Acts of Union formalised that these nations would become part of the United Kingdom, a political union, but each country retained its flag, its anthem, its identity and moreover its status as its own nation. I am a British citizen, and a Welsh national. Proto ► 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Only because I consider it subjective. But then let's start out from just Wikipedia. According to Nationality, "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. Traditionally under international law and conflict of laws principles, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. ... where the country is divided into separate states, different rules apply. In the common law, upon birth, every person acquires a domicile. This is the relationship between a person and a specific legal system. Hence, one might have an Australian nationality and a domicile in New South Wales, or an American nationality and a domicile in Arizona." (emphasis mine). According to State, "State refers to set of governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory." Leaving aside the contradiction between the articles, this would imply that the home nations are not states, as they are not sovereign. Thus they cannot confer nationality (which is also supported by the Nationality article explicitly with the US/Australian example). So what legal basis do you have, apart from emphatic statements, for considering yourself a Welsh national, and for claiming your nationality as Welsh? I am sincerely interested in a resolution of this question that would satisfy both of us. laddiebuck 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind and answer my question? Thank you. laddiebuck 02:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Laddiebuck, I missed this as my talk page got pretty busy; thank you for the reminder. You seem to believe that Scotland is to the United Kingdom as Alabama is to the United States or Queensland is to Australia. This is not the case. Please refer to the articles I have already pointed you towards. Proto ► 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all right; thanks for replying. I do understand the distinction; for all that I am not British, I know that island's history better than at least most of its youth. All I am saying is that it isn't a sovereign state. Yes, Labour introduced a devolved parliament, and even before that it had its own education system, legal system, currency, etc. But the argument that it is a sovereign state simply cannot be supported. I am just going by the Wikipedia definitions of nationality and state (as quoted above) to avoid philosophical arguments. laddiebuck 00:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please find the time to continue this debate, in bits and spurts? Thanks! laddiebuck 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry (again!) - I am not being very observant. There remains a distinction between a sovereign state and a nation. If you don't mind, whilst I know there's a difference, I perhaps am not doing a great job of describing this. Would you mind if I asked someone more knowledgable in these matters to step in? Neil (not Proto ►) 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I would be glad if you did so. I intentionally went with the Wikipedia definitions to avoid subjectivity (well, within the Wikipedia framework); experts are welcome. laddiebuck 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, please take a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Nationality, and see what you think. Neil (not Proto ►) 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The consensus I gathered from there was twofold: one, "British" is correct but the other terms should be used (I gather, because of nationalistic feelings), and two "English/Scottish/Welsh/etc." give more information. For the first: the Masses have Spoken, so that is current Wikipedia policy. Here to-day, gone to-morrow, I won't concern myself with it further. As to the second: it seems reasonable at first, but I don't entirely agree that it's true (for all audiences).

In any case, it's nothing further for us to discuss. laddiebuck 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Following the recent AfD discussion on Pallywood, I've made some changes to the article to address your concerns about original research and neologisms. Please feel free to comment at Talk:Pallywood. -- ChrisO 11:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Mann (Game Jew)

Why was this article deleted so hastily? I know it wasn't much but not being a particularly decent article writer myself, I had hoped that once I had created the article that other people would develope it furhter. TimeCruiserMike 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

hello

Hi Proto, I noticed some of the images mistakenly tagged by {{Non-free fair use in}},an example: Image:Csi sofiacurtis.jpg. Has the Uploader and User right to remove that template (that's mistakenly tagged)? Thanks--NAHID 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing about this image Image:Jeddah-sea-port-google.JPG. It's in under non-free license. The uploader took this image by using Google Earth. It's been tagged by{{PUInonfree}} What's your opinion about it? Give me feedback.Thanks

Hello! Neither are legit fair use, both have been deleted. Proto ► 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you delete it (Image:Csi sofiacurtis.jpg)? But it was a TV / Film screen shot. TV screenshot can't be replaceable image. Hundreds of image are in this category.
And can any user ,uploader or creator remove any deletion template from an Article \ Image (except {{Template:Prod}}) that's mistakenly tagged by another person? Can you clarify it to me? :) thanks --NAHID 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I shouldn't have deleted the CSI one, and have restored it. It is fair use, as it is being used to illustrate the character Sofia Curtis. It should probably be tagged with {{screenshot}}, rather than {{Non-free fair use in}}. The google image is absolutely not fair use, as a free image could esaily be obtained of Jeddah's sea port. As for deletion templates, you can remove {{prod}} ones freely, as you say. If it is a speedy deletion template, either remove it if it's clearly wrong and discuss it with the person who tagged it, either on the talk page of the user, or ont he talk page of the article/image. You could also add the {{hangon}} template. Do not remove deletion discussion templates (such as {{afd}} or {{ifd}}). Instead, participate in the deletion discussion and explain why the article/image ought not to be deleted, citing Wikipedia policy wherever possible. Proto ► 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable status of Image:New Rome approximate boundaries.jpg

Hello, Proto. I see you removed the "replaceable" tag from Image:New Rome approximate boundaries.jpg, saying that it's not replaceable unless we all own helicopters. We don't need to make an exact copy of this image to show the same information. There are public-domain aerial photos created by the U.S. federal government that we could use, or someone could draw a street map of the area from scratch. The information conveyed by the image is the approximate boundaries of the community of New Rome; owning a helicopter and personally taking an aerial photo are not necessary to create an image that shows this information. —Bkell (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately as the reviewing administrator, I kinda found the fair use rationale to be reasonable. You don't just retag it for deletion. Take it to IFD instead. Proto ► 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the process violation. It's now listed at IFD. —Bkell (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User you just banned...

Blanked the talk page using their anon IP: [6] Gsd2000 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It was the user page, not the talk page, but still. I've protected that as well. Proto ► 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh indeed... and thankyou. But his latest comment spells out his intentions exactly [7] - "I'm laughing, you lot think you can keep me off of here. Little do you know" Is it possible to ban an IP range "at source" as it were, regardless of whether they create a sockpuppet account? A month's ban might be just enough for this user to either grow up, or get bored. Gsd2000 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A six month softblock for the IP address usually works ... which is what I've just done. Proto ► 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Unfortunately, based on past experience, he seems to be on a dynamic IP - which is why I proposed the IP range block (visible in WHOIS). I realise that's a severe measure, but he's proven himself capable of evading IP blocks before. Gsd2000 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this user, I just wanted to draw your attention to the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother in case you haven't already seen them. WjBscribe 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh know I'm shaking in my boots. You're both so incapable and so sad for spending so much of your spare time actually caring about what goes on on here when you don't own it in anyway and it's actually got nothing to do with you. Good luck trying to get me but you'll just waste even more of your own time pursuing that which cannot be pursued, mind you I suppose you both have nothing else in your lives to do. 88.111.68.106 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what we can do is contact abuse@tiscali.net with the times of each and every edit you made, and the IP address it was made under. Proto ► 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. Don't think you can scare me or intimidate me off of editing Wikipedia because you some how seriously think Wikipedia is part owned by yourself or something. I won't be forced off and if anything you've only strengthened my resolve to keep editing. Your tactics against me will get you no where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.68.106 (talk • contribs)

True to his word, he is back again: User:Userofwiki. [8]. Gsd2000 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Theft is not fair use.

Besides that, many images from TV shows have been deleted by User:Ed g2s, who seems to know far more on this issue than you do. If you wish to follow what I do here, then do it. But you might consider that you are wrong. If I tag something which I deem not to be consistent with fair use, then the tag must remain until an admin considers the validity in an impartial way. Removing tags before the date IS vandalism, and if this is something that you wish to do, then you are undertaking vandalism and condoning it. --Bob 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the reviewing admin. Proto ► 07:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gordon. Proto ► 13:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo - anytime.--GordonWatts 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About wrong deletion tamplate

Okay, but what if I discuss it in edit summary instead of discussing with the person who tagged it, either on the talk page of the user, or on the talk page of the article/image. I noticed you discussed in edit summary when you removed the wrong deletion template from an image / article. Is that Okay to discuss in edit summary (if the license is completely wrong) than with the person and description page of image / article.Give me feedback--NAHID 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, providing the reason is very clear, and the template is obviously wrong. If there's doubt, at all, then discuss it. And if they revert you, discuss it, rather than reverting right back. Proto ► 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,:) but some people (who tagged wrongly an image/article) still thinks that it's vandalism when their wrong template removed by someone from an image/article.Regards --NAHID 12:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD recreation

Hi, last week you (in my and numerous other editors views) correctly closed This Afd with a delete. The article has reappeared (under a different article name) here and was created the day after you closed the AfD, is this now a speedy candidate? It seems whoever is behind all this (presumably his PR firm) needs to understand that we are not mugs and are not going to be taken for a ride. Thanks. SFC9394 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Matter has now been resolved, as another editor has kindly stepped in and just speedy tagged it (I wasn't sure if it had to go through another AfD or if it could just be speedy tagged). I will be posting on AN shortly (where I see you are regularly active) as I have uncovered a couple more interesting bits and bobs which may require some more detailed investigation. Thanks, SFC9394 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Personally, I do think the chap is notable enough for an article, but these are not suitable as they are puff pieces. Proto ► 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About Review admin and review user

Proto, What does Review admin(that you mentioned in Theft is not Fair use section) and review user mean? What they actually do? thanks --NAHID 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an administrator. One of the tasks admins often help out with is reviewing images that have been tagged for speedy deletion. We are able to delete them if they should be deleted, and if we do not believe (based on Wikipedia's policies) that they should be deleted, then we can remove the tag. To describe myself as the "reviewing admin" purely meant "I was the admin who reviewed this image". Proto ► 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IP address

This IP (Special:Contributions/202.79.18.2) (User talk:202.79.18.2) indicates some warning messages on its talk page. The IP is mine BUT I didn't vandalised any page before.It also engaged in editing with some Articles Where I haven't even visited. What's the problem? Will it create problems in future? Is someone using this IP from another PC?--NAHID 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)--NAHID 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

I volunteered on 15th september,2006. But this IP first started editing on 4th september, 2006 (from its talk page). If this IP is blocked(i.e. for further vandalism) then my account is also likely to be blocked??

P.S.2

Oh ! my IP is 10.0.7.101 (from connection status tab). But my contribution history shows this IP 202.79.18.2, while I contributing without logged in. Can I use {{User IP|10.0.7.101}} instead of 202.79.18.2 on my user page. How Can I rectify this?

Your IP may not be constant. People's IP addresses vary. Other people may have edited from the same IP address as you, and the only way to ensure you are only connectd to the edits you actually make is to ensure you are always logged in. You are also free to put whatever you like on your user page. Proto ► 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I left you a message on review admin section--NAHID 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But what's the job of review User? --NAHID 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nahid, I don't understand the question; there is no "Reviewing user". Proto ► 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't any user review the image and based on Wikipedia's policy, can they remove the tag ?? (As we discussed before). I mean they will be appeared as review user in this way--NAHID 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only if it is obvious and non-controversial. If you are not sure whether the edit would be controversial, do not make it. Proto ► 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit to WP:AIV

[9] - describing edits made by any editor in good standing, let alone an administrator, as "vandalism" is unacceptable. Do not do it again, please. Proto ► 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I checked the names and non of them seemed to have any contribs. If I made a mistake, please accept my apologies. Travelbird

A have a further question, just so I don't get this wrong in the future : Currently FEjobs.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is listed on the list. IF I click on "contribs", none are shown. Just so I understand this : Why is this user being listed on the page ? Travelbird 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The username is advertising a website. See our username policy. Proto ► 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. I though someone had cluttered the site with non-existant usernames. Just trying to help. Travelbird 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine. Just be aware that an account can be blocked for an inappropriate name without making any edits. If an account edits a page that is then deleted, those edits wouldn't show up, either. Proto ► 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

attack page

Hope you don't mind, but I removed that section from ANI, no need to publicize real names on a high visibility page. NoSeptember 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It's probably something I should have done. Proto ► 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the protection issue raised on my talk page? NoSeptember 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat's unblock

If you've unblocked him solely because it's a first offense. You should look at this and this. There 's more on talk pages. <<-armon->> 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I unblocked him because the "offence" was not blockworthy. I have asked him to be more careful in future, but any further carelss comments will recieve a lot less sympathy, I imagine. Proto ► 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK your call. I've removed the blogged insults from the Hitchens article for BLP. <<-armon->> 12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Without having looked at the article, other than to check what csloat said, I would imagine that is the proper course of action. Proto ► 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat

Well, I told Jp that if he disagreed he should feel free to unblock. However, I think Jp's reasoning made more sense than yours. BLP applies to talk pages. That's not negotiable. JoshuaZ 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP advises to remove the offending section, not to block the offender without warning - that was a decision you took, not one mandated by BLP. Proto ► 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assert otherwise. However, this was not the user's first serious BLP problem, and he has been warned before. Furthermore, please note that my main point above was in regard to your comment that "As the comment was on a talk page, not an article" - this is irrelevant to whether or not a BLP problem occured. Policy and Jimbo have made it clear that we shouldn't see a difference there. (And no, saying someone is an "alcoholic" is not just an "opinion" but a statement of factual nature). JoshuaZ 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BLP and Jimbo are clear that we shouldn't see a difference. Statements in violation of BLP ought to be removed, whether on articles or talk pages. It doesn't mention blocking. Proto ► 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how repeated violations of BLP would not be blockable. Again, the issue here is the general pattern more so than the specific edit in question. JoshuaZ 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As violations went, it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur. I am very sure he has realised what is and is not acceptable. Plus the offence was two weeks ago - what would blocking him now be preventing? Proto ► 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now we're at Jp's logic which as I said to him, seemed reasonable. As an unblocking basis, that seems fine. JoshuaZ 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi Proto. I tagged the images again because I thought that the reason I provided was incorrect. I apologize if I might have seemed to revert your edits. I checked the sources and in no place was it mentioned that the copyright holder allows others to freely redistribute, modify, and use commercially his/her images. The user who uploaded these images argues that in Flickr, the images are public; I might be wrong, but I think that that means they are just that, public, i.e. open and accessible for everyone to view. Do you think I should nominate them for deletion? Thanks. --Anas ^Talk? 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked, but probably missed, your explanation regarding why these images should not be deleted. The Flickr website clearly states that these particular images are fully copyrighted. Can you point me to any source that can help clear this up for me? Rklawton 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI

You might be interested in WP:ANI#Block review of User:MoeLarryAndJesus as you were the original blocker.--Isotope23 14:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mazaradi Fox

can you please "unprotect" the Mazaradi Fox article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterm1991 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

OK, but if it gets recreated again as an article that is unreferenced, biased, and fails to show why the guy is notable, I will delete it again, and that will be that. See Wikipedia:Why did my article get deleted?, if you're going to recreate it again, please make sure it's good enough. Maybe look at the articles of a few other music artists to see what is expected. Proto ► 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, e-mail for you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My article

Well, those legal threats that originally got me banned, were never intended, it was plain old theatrics, y'know. I like my article: worship me you democracy. Daniel Brandt. --TRAM FLEMIN 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Yes, my identical copy of bucket-and-mop =]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Erfan

Neil, why did you delete the article, we were having discussion about it? for the past week and it was not finished????

The article was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erfan. See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? if you are unsure why it was deleted after reading the discussion. Neil (not Proto) 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Niel, I asked why you deleted it? I understand the guidelines and the fact that the article was slated for deletion but there was a discussion on teh topic, the articles related to a Music artist were listed by me specifically pointing out why the article would be kept on wikiepdia, it seems like you did not read the discussion page on it, did you? Would like to make any specific points about my writting on that page, I don't see any comments from you other than a one liner which is not discriptive.

I don't decide to delete it, I just see what the consensus is among the people who participate in the discussion, and go by what they recommend. They recommended to delete it. If he does get signed to a major label, then he would meet the criteria we have (see WP:MUSIC), so the article could be remade. Neil (not Proto ►) 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bmalke.jpg

Why did you remove the speedy tag from this image? The source page clearly states that the image is fully copyrighted. Rklawton 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Neil (not Proto ►) 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I thought I might have missed something. Cheers - Rklawton 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an image which I had tagged my friend. You didn't even bother to reply to my message a few days ago. This image's source is the same as the ones you removed the tags from—those you mentioned in the message you left me. The remaining images are in your message. Maybe I wasn't wrong after all. Cheers. - Anas ^Talk? 12:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What did you do?

Why did you delete the article titled Emanuel School? Would you care to elaborate on this please...

Raheel Ahmed.

Waiting for your reaction.

I believe you said you would block the offending party who did this [10] until one minute past the crack of doom. Well... Risker 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• No point, it'll be reopened anyway. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User5 ... again.

Hi, Neil! Back ages and ages and eons ago when you were "Proto" (how time flies!), you were kind enough to move an rfcu link into {{user5}}. Later, Ryulong took it out again as "ugly", but agreed to allow it if the link would simply disappear when no checkuser page was found. I've recoded to make that possible, but he apparently doesn't want to deal with it any more, from his last edit summary on the template. Could I prevail upon you to update {{user5}} again? This time I'm providing cleaned-up code for the whole first block of the template, up to and including the "<noinclude>":

[[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|talk]]{{separator}}{{contribs|{{{1}}}|contribs}}{{separator}}{{pagemoves|{{{1}}}|page moves}}{{separator}}{{blockuser|{{{1}}}|block user}}{{separator}}{{blocklog|{{{1}}}|block log}}{{rfcu|{{{1}}}|&#32;<small>•</small> rfcu|cond=n}}{{ssp|{{{1}}}|&#32;<small>•</small> ssp|list=y|cond=n}})<noinclude>

(Copy-and-paste from the normal-view screen, not the edit mode.)

The result of {{user5|Neil}} would be:

Neil (talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ page moves ⋅ block user ⋅ block log)

Notice that the "rfcu" and "ssp" links would not appear, because you've never had those. Looks like the old {{user5}}.

Meanwhile, the result of {{user5|Mykungfu}} would be:

Mykungfu (talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ page moves ⋅ block user ⋅ block log • rfcu • ssp^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks})

The "rfcu" and "ssp" links and socks-lists would appear because he's had all of those.

For most users, {{user5}} would look like always. But when a recorded sock-puppeteer encounters the template, those alarms will go off.

Incidentally, that same option is available for finding WP:RFARB AND WP:RFC/USER subpages on a user, if you ever want to add those options to a {{user_}} template:
     {{rfarb|{{{1}}}|&#32;<small>•</small> rfarb|cond=n}}
     {{rfcuser|{{{1}}}|&#32;<small>•</small> rfcuser|cond=n}}
No space needed between these templates; the space is built-in (so it disappears too). -- Ben 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. That looks cooler than the Fonz in a fridge in Finland. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Meisterchef

can you please look again at edits at User talk:Meisterchef - I don't think pasting all that policy text is allowed, especially for an indef blocked user. I've seen talk pages protected for banned users, and have asked for it in this case. Perhaps you agree and can do it? Not a dog 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ticket Master

You just removed a listing from WP:RFCN for a user The Ticket Master (not sure how the caps went) because they were no tnotified properly. It appears as though you warned User:Acalamari for this. Reviewing the history it appears as though a new user, user User:Groupempty made this report. Did you mean to warn Acalamari? If so, would you specify which report he made in error? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chris. Congrats on becoming an admin, by the way! No, the warning was for how Acalamari reported "User:Raw Smackdown fans" or whatever the name was. He knows which one it was for, see his response to me below. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, sorry to question it just wanted to make sure. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Response.

I responded with I did tell the user. I was told to use the tags. What guideline am I not following now?

I will now add: why is it you only commented on Wwe raw smackdown fans and not any of the others? Also, why does everyone go on about me for not following policy, when Betacommand, who is an administrator, blocked a load of users the other week for having inflammmatory names, when in fact their names were fine. Why was nothing done about Betacommand? He didn't even inform the users: he just blocked them. I'm taking this to the RFC/U talk page. Acalamari 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:U - you are supposed to ask the user nicely to change their name first, before reporting it to RFCN, which is a more formal process. There's even a template to do this = {{UsernameConcern}}. Hope that helps! Neil (not Proto ►) 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable Source?

Hi, I'm somewhat new here, but I'm trying to contribute to several projects. One opportunity involves creating an article about a website. I am in contact with the owner of this website and he has agreed to lend information and verify my description. This being my first article however, I am not sure of how to properly cite this reference. The information comes straight from the source, but there is no way to check for validity. Do you have any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speedman336 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Speedman336. See WP:CITE for how to cite references on Wikipedia. Good luck! LEt me know if you have any more problems, and happy editing :) Neil (not Proto ►) 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please revert changes to {{user5}}

The changes to {{user5}} are hosing WP:SSP. Please revert. More testing seems to be required... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ouch! ... All right, I'm going to assume there's something about that last subtemplate "ssp" that shouldn't be used on WP:SSP due to the transcluded subpages there, and give up on that one aspect -- eliminate that factor in the problem. I'm also going to remove most transcluded templates in favor of hardcodes, and replace the "•" character with the &sdot; HTML tag, just to reduce those vulnerabilities -- though that inevitably makes the code much longer. I don't think anything else should be a problem; and it was Akhilleus himself who asked me to develop the other new template, "rfcu", so I'd still like to try that inclusion one more time... but this time while someone's looking at WP:SSP to monitor the effects in case there are problems again. Could we coordinate a time with Akhilleus to put the revised update into {{user5}} while he watches? (I'm going to point him here for discussion.)

Here is revised code for the whole first block of the template, up to and including the "<noinclude>":

[[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}]]&#32;(<span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|talk]]<small>&sdot;</small>[[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="Contributions: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">contribs</span>]]<small>&sdot;</small>[{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}} <span title="Page moves: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><span style="color:#002bb8">page&nbsp;moves</span></span>]<small>&sdot;</small>[[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="Block User:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">block&nbsp;user</span>]]<small>&sdot;</small>[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{anchorencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}}} <span title="Blocklog: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><span style="color:#002bb8">block&nbsp;log</span></span>]{{rfcu|{{{1|Example}}}|<small>&sdot;</small>rfcu|cond=n}}</span>)<noinclude>

As a confirmation, I'm copying-and-pasting the code from the normal-view screen above to the edit mode below; it should look and work (in normal view) exactly like the template will when it's coded that way and then transcluded onto a page.

Example (talk⋅contribs⋅page moves⋅block user⋅block log⋅rfcu)

Now, that works, definitely works, right? But then so did the earlier version, higher up here on your talk page -- so we see that "lab testing" proves nothing. We need this field-tested as the actual template on the actual pages, in order to be sure that the transclusion-as-template and then the transclusion-from-subpages-to-main-page don't somehow make it malfunction. -- Ben 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've left that request at Akhilleus's talk page. -- Ben 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm available at the moment, if you're still online. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• And in discussion there, it became more and more likely that the root cause of the "hosing" was the huge transclusion workload at WP:SSP, which transcludes many subpages that each use "user5" multiple times, so multiply all that by the number of transcluded subtemplates in "user5", and... well, it appears that everything went okay until halfway down the page, at which point the server simply stopped doing transclusions, in effect throwing its tools to the ground, saying "Screw this!", and marching angrily out the door. ... ... Akhilleus tells me the page had been loading slowly even before this. It may have been near some sort of time limit already. So the above amended update, replacing most subtemplates with hardcodes, is exactly the sort of fix needed. I hope the two of you can find a good time to be on together; otherwise we could just pester a different administrator... and (moans softly) explain the issue all over again to someone new. (quietly whimpers and crawls under the bed) -- Ben 07:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Simple solution - try again, and if it breaks SSP again, I'll revert again. I did put the little dotties (the •s) back in because they look nicer. Neil (not Proto ►) 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewdar DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jewdar. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Merope 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey, I was wondering if you would be interested in adopting me. I have been using wikipedia for a while now but have never really written/edited for it and I'm not totally sure how to go about doing that. Thanks, Dustybunny 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dustybunny, see your talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dustybunny 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Adoption

Ok. - SeriousCat 12:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proto!

Oh, hi. I didn't realize Proto became Neil! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 13:00Z

Yes, it's me. Hello! Neil (not Proto ►) 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

name change

I requested a name change because of a mistake I made when I created my account; (no space) is this going to break all the links to my userpage that are already on talk pages? - SeriousCat 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your old userpage and talk page become redirects to your new pages, so anyone who follows the old links will find themselves at your new place. -- Ben 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

another question

I don't understand why this article has this template on it. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Air_boat It dosen't seem to have a talk page. - SeriousCat 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

new {{user5}} code & SSP

Looks ok so far. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Neil (not Proto ►) 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner's RFA

Bonus points for bringing up both ninjas and pirates. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

I've left a response to your oppose. I'll just repeat the main point here: I don't condone what I did; I had a reason for doing so at that time but on hindsight it was a major lapse in judgement. I try to keep my abrasiveness in check, but everyone errs. Thanks for considering my nomination. Cheers, – Chacor 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seen an already replied :) To go into more detal - I think it's misleading to describe it as being 11 months since "the offense" - I'm going from the four months since you finally admitted to it. Does four months of honesty and frequent incivility make up for 7 months of lying and frequent incivility? I have decided no, it does not (or at least, not yet). Neil (not Proto ►) 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hope my incivility isn't "frequent". Like I say, I do try to keep myself in check. I've replied, but here it is in full: At first it was a matter of being scared, to be honest. What would happen? Ultimately, what would have happened (desysopping) still happened. After that it was a question of "if I admit now, how would the community react?" And once again, I will admit, I was scared as to how it would react. I finally decided it wasn't worth wasting my effort trying to worry about this, and on the other hand trying to act as if nothing happened. I don't like the way I handled it, I could definitely have dealt with it better, but this is how I did deal with it, for better or worse, and this is where we stand. – Chacor 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

16:39, April 28, 2006 NSLE (Talk | contribs) protected Daniel Brandt (protected long enough [move=sysop]) - this is from my protect log. I did not re-protect the article as you claim. – Chacor 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I have fixed my error. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Times

Thankyou. It's just something of a shame that my attempt to boost Wikipedia came just as Essjay hit the news... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Eye Deletion

Why was the Red Eye (alcoholic drink) deleted?! That was a legit entry!

See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that before. But none of the stipulations apply to the Red Eye entry. What was the specific reason it was deleted?

It had been tagged for proposed deletion, and the 5 days had expired. As you've questioned it, I've restored it. Let me know if you have any questions. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi there. I saw on the WP:1FAPQ project page that you had volunteered your services as a copy editor. I wondered if you could spare the time to give HMS Royal Oak (1914) the once-over. Your recent edit history suggests you might be busy, so if it's not practical, that's quite understandable. Best regards — BillC ^talk 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've had a look over it. It seems ok, one sentence was kinda awkward (the one where they were flown to Berlin to meet with Hitler and recieve the Iron Cross(es)), I tried to make sense out of it but I'm not sure who the 'they' and 'he' were initially referring to, it's a little ambiguous. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your efforts, much appreciated. I tried to clarify what was going on with the Iron Crosses, and made some other small changes myself. The only thing I sort of changed back was the sentence about men escaping from the ship dressed only in their pyjamas. There seemed to be an implication that many (most?) men had escaped from the ship, only then to die from exposure. In fact, most men were thought not to have escaped from the ship before drowning: believing that the attack was an air-raid, they followed their training to get beneath the protection of armour in the battleship's 'citadel', an action which condemned them to be trapped in the ship when it rolled and sank so quickly. Anyway, thanks again for your work! Best regards — BillC ^talk 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stupid bot! Neil (not Proto ►) 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

US West

You may not have seen the vote on the talk page, but the concensus was not to move the page. Wikipedia:Naming conventions also recomends the most commonly recognizable name over the more technically correct name, should there be a difference. In this case, US West is the common convention. Thanks, Cacophony 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

May I just borrow your admin bit for a while?....

Akhilleus and I were of the same mind about an enhancement to WP:SSP, and it's now in place: an inputbox to create new case reports, rather amazingly like the one WP:RFCU had... and still has, don't worry, we wouldn't do anything bad like steal the inputbox coding and the related editintro and preload texts and file off the serial numbers and pretend, oh look, here's what just fell off a truck as it was driving past!...

A couple of files created along the way aren't needed any more, and can be deleted. A few others may be in harm's way because very simple errors can get them edited and changed quite by accident, and would benefit from protection simply to keep innocent people from wasting their effort or even losing their data that way. (Not a vandalism issue, more like putting a guardrail at the cliff's edge.)

Would you be so kind and comprehending, stoop so low and be so bending, as to:

Delete:

• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/0_Format
• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/0_Header

Originally the preload and editintro files respectively, before I realized it might not be a good idea to store them among a bunch of sockpuppet reports that occasionally get carted off to the archives. Being unable to move pages, having no time to wait, I copied-and-pasted them (slaps own wrist) over to a subdirectory noted for its use of zeroes to stay on top of the subpages.

Fully protect:

• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/PUPPETMASTER
• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/

The latter is NOT the same as the main page; that final "/" all by itself makes it a subpage. Either of these two files may be accidentally edited by anyone making either of two very simple mistakes while trying to open a case: leaving the default username "PUPPETMASTER" where it is and not replacing it with the actual username of a puppetmaster; or leaving out the username altogether -- the latter being how that "/" file was originally created, if you look at its history. Poor chap filled out a whole report, then had to do it all over again on the right page. I've put texts in both these pages to warn users to go back and do it right, but if they made the mistake in the first place then following directions wasn't their strong point. Not to save my deathless prose currently on these pages, but to keep some other poor souls from misplacing all their hard-found evidence, would you make sure they can only "view source" until they realize this was not the droid file they were looking for, and move along, move along?

Forgive and absolve:

• User:PUPPETMASTER
• User_talk:PUPPETMASTER

Not the user of that name -- there IS NO user of that name, only a User:PuppetMaster who had nothing to do with it -- but forgive and absolve ME for creating those two pages to clear up any misunderstanding on the part of people who keep seeing that name pop up in templates and SSP instructions (as often as the famous author Anon Ibid shows up in footnotes), and who decide to berate the wretch for his long career of villainy and vice. My heart would not be broken if anyone deleted these pages and salted the ground whereon they stood so that nothing thereafter would grow upon the site save an endless silence and dust.... but, on the other hand, they may be found helpful as a sort of explanation. What the heck, protect them if you see fit, since for all I know they may otherwise turn into Troll Mecca.

There now. You have your admin bit back, safe and sound. It's hardly dented at all, and those stains will wash right off, I promise! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

All done

I know when to do what I'm told. You know, this would be a lot simpler if you got sysopped. Want me to nominate you? You'd sail through. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the help, Neil. I know I've been a bother, getting you to unlock the tool cabinets every time I wanted to tinker with the gadgets, add bells and whistles, or develop brand new gadgets myself -- and I appreciate your willingness and kind forbearance. Getting my own set of keys to the tool cabinets would surely make some things quicker for me, and easier for the people I keep pestering to open it.

If it was just a question of the editing access -- edit protected templates, move or delete pages -- and if people felt they could trust me to always do that wisely and well, given my occasional blunders and my quite short Wiki-history, I'd be happy of that. Tinkering with the works seems to be my calling here.

The rest of the admin role, such as the "cop" duties, and particularly the social divide that seems to exist between admins and non-admins -- perhaps inevitably, from the imbalance of power (one party can block the other, not vice versa, and they both know it) -- is something I need to think about, long and hard. And I rather think people ought to be nervous about handing it out to someone without a longer track record.

You know, just a partial "admin bit", something like "trusted editor" status without the blocking powers, might be a useful option for the project. Clearly it's possible for powers to be subdivided, like the differences between admin and bureaucrat and steward -- or the difference between unregistered editor and newly registered editor and established editor with regard to creating pages or editing semiprotected pages. One more such gradation of access should be entirely do-able. Could we broach that idea widely enough, and high enough, that it might have some chance of being considered and even acted upon? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's no bother... I'm happy to go on doing the template tinkering on your behalf Ben, if it's helping The Wikipedia, it's all good. I'm pretty certain that partitioning the sysop tools has been mooted before, it always seems to get shot down for very reasonable reasons ... I don't remember them, nor can I think of any, but it gets shot down anyway. Admins don't have to use all the tools at their disposal, and a carefully reasoned RFA would still pass. There's no rush, think it over. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My adminship

I wanted to thank you for voting in my request for adminship, which succeeded. I was really quite surprised by the amount of support, and only wish I was able to thank everyone sooner (I fell ill about then). Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Neil

This talk page can't be right, But I don't know what to do other than blank it(i didn't yet); there's nothing good in the history as far as I can tell. - Serious Cat 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Points_in_Case

I've deleted it. You can tag stuff like that for speedy deletion... use {{delete|your reason}}. If it carries on, you can report the page for admin attention on the admin noticeboard, WP:AN/I. Neil (not Proto ►) 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - Serious Cat 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)