Hey, since you deleted the article, can you copy over the deleted text to User:Akhristov/Estophobia? I want to give the article another chance and see if anybody else is willing to work on it. Thanks. — Alex(U|C|E)07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a very strong feeling someone will take this to Deletion Review; if this does not happen over the next few days, then I'll be happy to do so. Is that okay? Neil╦10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't created neither but they look like things that belong into Wikdictionary as Estophilia and Estophobia...--Alexia Death18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
One is a redirect and the other has now been speedied. Note Wiktionary does not accept neologisms. Neil╦22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Adoption
Hi Neil. I recently left a message on your talk page, but I fear it may have slipped under your radar due to a large amount of other messages (it's since been archived). Hope to hear from you. --CA387Talk21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I did reply - I don't have the time to take on any more people at the moment so I pointed you back towards WP:ADOPT, I'm afraid :( Neil╦22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the parameters for the current release version selections are the quality of the article and/or the importance, regardless of quality assessment status. I've recently nominated several articles for inclusion which are at this point neither GA or FA, but which I think qualify as being articles which any respectable encyclopedia would have. Articles like Moses, Mary (mother of Jesus), Saint Peter, and the like. There is a bot in development which is supposed to help in determining which articles should be included in the various release versions based on importance. Reports are that bot might be available by the end of the month, but it's still in development right now. I wish I could find the page that it's mentioned on, but for the life of me I can't right now. John Carter22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleting
Hey Proto... oops, I mean "Neil" can you delete this for me? It's served its purpose and it's just a waste of space now. Why'd you change your name, I like Proto better than Neil.Samovthebluesand01:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Because my real name isn't Proto. Although, it would be awesome if it was. Maybe I should have changed my real name to Proto, rather than my user name to Neil. Neil╦10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. The article should be give a proper AfD. And BTW, I seriously doubt its a neologism, I have seen this term used in my history books at school(seven years ago) to describe Estonia sympathetic Germans during the national awakening.--Alexia Death05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Crap. That article was created to make a point, and both of you know it. An AFD would just be another venue for the squabbling that's been going on recently. But if you sincerely believe it should be here, the big writing at the top of the page, WP:DRV is the place to go. Neil╦06:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not a very civil reply from you Neil. It was necessary to ask you first to restore the article, since it is clear that you will not, the way is clear to take it to deletion review. Cheers. Martintg06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Neil, you are an admin, if pointless squabbling or incivility do occur then it is your right and duty to block/warn who ever is responsible for disruption and to prevent hostilities from escalating. Just deleting potentially controversial articles is like hiding head under sand. It will not fix anything.--Alexia Death07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I can understand that creating an "opposite-of-A" article immediately after "A" was judged as non-notable and deleted, could be judged as a WP:Point, heck, I would probably do the same if I was in your posistion. However Estophilia is a signifcant subject of Estonian history, it just is unfortunate that it was quite understandably associated with Estophobia. As I said, most sources are either in German or Estonian, but I have listed a few that I have found here:
Online Britannica quote: "Written literature began in the so-called Estophile period (c. 1750–1840) with moral tales and manuals written by Balto-German enthusiasts for the native language and culture." [5]
Another book reference: The History of Estonia, 2nd edition, by A. Maesalu, T. Lukas, T, Tannberg, et al [6] (ISBN 9985-2-0606-1) Quote from section beginning on page 167: Estophiles and the first Estonian intellectuals: "The growing interest in exotic and minority peoples in Europe launched the Estophile movement in Estonia. The Estophiles - Baltic Germans interested in Estonia - studied the Estonian language and culture, published fiction of considerable artistic level, newspapers, textbooks for schools, and founded various scientific societies....."
There seems to be a consensus forming in DRV to undelete Estophilia, so as deleting admin you could just wrap this thing up and undelete it.
It is my hope that the Estophilia stub is not immediately listed for AfD, given the sources above and elsewhere, because it will be a disruptive waste of energy. Note that the original stub of Estonian national awakening[7] was subject to an AfD that was defeated quickly[8]. As you can see, that was eventually developed into a good article. Cheers. Martintg01:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent input into the Speedy Deletion discussion this article. It ended up with unanimous support for overturning Speedy Deletion. Now it has been tagged AfD. The original nominator for speedy deletion was again very prompt in providing his support for the present round of discussion. As a result I am now seeking further input on the article. Detractors are using the 'lack of notability' excuse argument, so I have updated the article to cite coverage from mainstream Radio and Newspaper. After this, one of the complainants reversed their judgment, but I still have work to do. If you could spare a few minutes to review the updated article and provide your perspective on the evidence of notability I would be very grateful.Yogidude12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you have also contacted those who advocated deletion in the deletion review discussion. Neil╦14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I contacted all of the contributors to the deletion review and AfD discussion. In the end there were two that did not revisit their position publicily. The page has now passed the AfD. Thanks again for your time. Yogidude01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Picture of Sirrus
I was looking at the article Sirrus and Achenar, and I noticed that Image:Sirrus.jpg had been deleted, but not Image:Achenar.jpg, which also appears on the page. They both are from the same part of the Myst game (trapped in the books), so I'm wondering why you deleted the image of Sirrus, saying "not fair use," while not doing so for Achenar (which does have a rationale on it)? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"Neil I don't want to seek punishment - but I do want to be vindicated (as not being a sock) - saying 'assmume' innocence is a bit much - isn't it supposed to be disproved ? I don't want the allegation of being a sock hanging over my head - perhaps if an admin could rule that I wasn't a sock it would bring some 'closure' to the matter. Sprigot14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this send out the message to Giggy (and others) that it's OK to accuse people of Sock Puppeteering, even via a formal route, because nothing happens if they do ? No warning of Disruptive (WP:POINT and WP:BITE) behaviour, no clam down don't be silly - no 'anything' ? Sprigot14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. As WP:BLOCK says, blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not punish users. Neil╦15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Misterrick Talk Page addition
I noticed that you protected user Misterrick's talk page. Could you make an edit please? the image Mgmgranddet-rendering.jpg has no source or fair use rationale and i was going to paste the links on the templates listed on the image to the user page like it says, but I can't do this because it's been protected, since December actually. If you could add the notices for both the source and the fair use rationale it would be great. Thanks. Ejfetters10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your response to my reporting of User:70.65.138.93 for vandalism. The user in question has repeatedly reverted to a very old version of the page. It is not merely me disagreeing with his/her edits; there has been a discussion about the information that they keep re-adding on the talk page here. How this can be considered a "good faith" edit when they have been repeatedly asked not to make these changes is beyond me. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk12:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Aphex Twin
Hello. I hope you are having a sunny day. I want to remove the IDM from the genre list of Aphex Twin, and some others will remove it also, but it is readded by others. I looked at 40 Aphex Twin articles from many educated British publications. IDM is never mention. I want to show Electronic Music, Ambient Techno, and the sincere musical genres only. I want to show IDM is the messageboard list. http://music.hyperreal.org/lists/idm/ I saw recently your opinions in the IDM article. Sorry to use your time. Susume-eat
I am not having a sunny day. The UK has had no sunny days. We live under eternal cloud. BAH. I'll have a look ;) Neil╦10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Amy Mihaljevic
Please review my additional references on the discussion page for Amy's article. Please re-edit article including these details and remove article protection. This is an unsolved case that is generating a lot of new leads in Ohio. By protecting or deleting this article you are hindering the investigation by limiting information to potential witnesses or suspects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs)
Thanks so much for your help with this article, Neil. I realize I'm very green at this. If you could check in on it every once in awhile and make sure we're doing things right, I'd appreciate it. You seem like a good non-biased editor. -James
Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.
Hi. You seem to have deleted this article some time ago. I don't know what the content was, but the subject is somewhat noteworthy in Dutch history. Could you tell me what is was about? An interwikilink was added to it on nl: on April 21st, so I suppose it might have been a legitimate article (most hoaxes don't have interwikilinks I'd guess). Cheers, Niels(F)? en | nl15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A user had created a number of hoax articles on Frisian historical people, this was understood to be one of them. I have restored the article, thanks for letting me know. Neil╦15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Neil, As I'm adopted by you I guess you are my wiki-stepdad. I need some fatherly advice: I want to create a page for the singer and composer Andrea Martin, but there is allready a page called Andrea Martin. How would you go about the disambiguation?
You have deleted my page on Thameside Radio because of possible copyright infringement. Another user identified the content as being similar to an existing web site www.thamesideradio.net. Since I am the original author of the article as well as author and owner of the web site there is no problem. The web site also makes it clear that the text is published under GNU free documentation licence. I hope that this is sufficient to have the page reinstated. If there is anything else I need to do I am happy to do so.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic has a clear Keep consensus. Twice as many people are arguing for keeping instead of deleting, there are a large number of unrelated reliable sources, and it's a real stretch to bring up BLP concerns when no living people are mentioned in the article (some were before, but that was addressed). If that isn't a Keep consensus, then almost nothing is. Please change your closing. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is that every other closing will have to take the risk of being compared to that one. ("Hey, there are only 12 people arguing Delete to 7 arguing Keep, look at this, that means that's a No Consensus.") It was a prominent AFD, mentioned on several notice boards (take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic - BLPN, ANI, COIN), we need to get it right. There is also a minor difference in that a No Consensus close is more open to being reopened than a Keep close; that shouldn't be as much of a problem here, as the original issues have been addressed, but still not negligible. --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ten keeps, two weak keeps, 7 deletes. Policy arguments were strong on both sides, ergo, no real consensus. It could not be argued there was a an obvious consensus to keep ... my definition of consensus is usually - if both sides have put forward good arguments - about three-quarters. Neil╦14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Amy Mihaljevic image
Neil, you've been a voice of reason for the Amy Mihaljevic page. I thought the debate was over, but her image was deleted, even though I have shown the photo to be undoubtably covered under fair use. The copyright to the school photo belongs to the parent. Amy's surviving parent has repeatedly granted use of this image related to his daughter's tragic story. It is historically significant and specifically relevent to the article. Also, it has been reprinted numerous times in the Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Free Times, Cleveland Magazine, the Milwaukee Journal, the Beacon Journal, the Record Courier, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Elyria Chronicle Telegram, Sun Newspapers, and several other publications. Can you do anything about this? Thank you. JamesRenner
Halia
Hey, about that Halia article. I'm sorry about that hoax. You see I originally made some articles on my user page, e.g. User:Monbro/Halia and then I moved the article to /wiki/Halia because it was annoying seeig the article title User:Monbro.ALfred instead of just 'Alfred' or something, but because of this Ill just use my user page now.
Sorry for any annoyance I caused Wikipedia. By the way, how did you find out about the article? I'm just interested. Also, I like the format of your user page, show me how to do that. Oh and you may beg to differ but my imaginary state is actually very interesting, its not one of these plain stupid things that I thought of in a minute. I've been working on it for 8 years and I thought about putting it on the computer, layed out in a Wikipedia-style thing and this is why i did it in the 1st place.
As I said, it is actualy very interesting. It's got its own monarch, legislature and all the political parties and head of states and provinces and everything. I know you may laugh at this but keep looking at my user page cos ill update it. Its name is the United Provinical Federation of the Halian Imperial Commonwealth and its the biggest federation in the world. Its eastern european but its official languages are English, French and Halian which is a fictional language in the Romance family based on mixes of ENglish, French, Spanish, German and Latin. I've said enough you can reply :)
Monbro19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Do not post "to match the name of the nearby Amsterdam ArenA, home of AFC Ajax" on the article of Amsterdam Bijlmer ArenA railway station. It's not real. You can not know why the name is changed. I know it, because i living in The Netherlands. Tahrim18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Why else would they call the station the Amsterdam Bijlmer ArenA? It's on ArenA Boulevard in Zuidoost. Just like the Villa ArenA, and the cinema's called the Pathe ArenA. So they changed the name of the system to match this. Kindly stop removing information. Neil╦11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Fangio/Nelson
collapsed to reduce bloat
I'm really not trying to gaim (or is it game - i don't know) the system. I'm trying to avoid bringing this to the ArbCom and trying to do things right. Every step in the WP:DR process has failed, and miserably. Basically, people have supported finding a neutral solution, but because other's don't want to accept mediation (or want to change the "rules" on the fly), I'm running out of options. I'm all ears for suggestions, but this guy has been on my back non-stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Fangio/Nelson RFAR
Just now noticed the AN thread. Didn't mean to step on your toes, I think we just crossed over, started on that once I saw the revert warring and yelling was still going on. Hopefully it gets worked out one way or the other, but it's certainly got to stop. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I probably wouldn't have taken it to arbitration, as it's entering into lame edit war territory, but if you're happy doing that, that's fine by me - good luck! Neil╦10:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that I'd say "happy", was really hoping it wouldn't come to that. At the same time, the big hammer is a rather blunt instrument that has a habit of making things worse rather than better, and I hate to see talk pages full of bickering, it drives other people away. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get you guys off track, but I am really curious to know why you feel I'm so problematic. I've been attacked over and over and over again. The guy has asserted WP:OWN issues repeatedly, and I continually try to be civil in my responses. He has even stated that I'm mentally unstable. I have asked so many times to have his rudeness toward me curtailed and all that happens is he is warned. What would you like me to do? If this were as simple as a single article - you just move on. But this is a template, which has the potential to touch thousands of articles. I would understand your guys point more if I hadn't asked for help, but I have. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're problematic. I don't think Chris is, either. You just don't seem to want to agree - you keep saying "Chris's solution is fine", yet if that's the case, why are you disputing it? I also don't think you've been attacked, however. Maybe goaded at times, but not attacked. Neil╦10:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what i don't get - and maybe it's because you are fresh to the situation - but the guy has flat out called me a lunatic. How is that not an attack? He makes these statements, I point them out and nobody helps get this back to content. Chris's solution isn't fine, his solution is valid. So are people who want to focus on the year of the game and not the year of the season. It is possible for two people to be correct. That is why a compromise is needed. I'm not looking for further action, just a better understanding of why when most people seem to agree, that nobody wants to hold people accountable for their actions. All things considered, I think I've behaved very well here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) I'd very much agree with Neil. I don't think either of you is irredeemably problematic or just out to cause trouble, if I believed that, I would've just hit the block button and not bothered the arbitrators. At the same time, though, it just seems the two of you will not quit fighting. I'm not even going to try and untangle who's more or less at fault or any such, but it's causing all sorts of disruption, and one way or the other, it's got to stop. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, this aspect of the conversation doesn't seem to be helping me to understand how we are where we are. A guy calls me an asshole, a lunatic, mentally unstable, and antagonizes me when I ask him to address me as something other than dude, and yet we continue. He violates WP:OWN in nearly everway possible, and I'm still having to fight to have a content related discussion. Onward and upward, hope this doesn't turn out for the worse. But I'm not the lunatic and I'm sick of having to put up with that. I'll leave this chat for now but it's a shame that the guy trying to open the DR process and trying not to bite someone back isn't being encouraged.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 11:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(three bloody editconflicts in a row on my own talk page) Okay, Juan - that's the first time that edit has been pointed out. That is indeed a personal attack, and should not have been made. As for a solution, why not link them like this: 2005/6; this is what they do to solve a similar problem in soccer.
As for your other comments, yes, Chris has been rude. I have asked him to stop, and unless he continues, that will be the end of it. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Please do report any more rudeness to either my talk page or the admin noticeboard. Neil╦11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to liter your talk page with past indiscretions. I've bitten back, so it's not as if i haven't violated WP:NPA. But it was mildly and only after repeated reportings did not curtail his behavior. That's not necessarily a bad suggestion, again, I'm open to community aided consensus, I just don't want one person asserting that their way is the only way...because there are a ton of ways to relay relevant info. Again, remember we are talking about an infobox and not article content.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there a centralised point where this discussion over year format is actually taking place? Neil╦11:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've found the relevant sections ... it seems neither side is willing to give way, and both sides make valid points. The only way for this to be solved is by enforced consensus. Arb Com do not deal with content disputes. They may choose to address the behaviour of parties involved in the dispute, but will not the dispute itelf.
I suggest starting a fresh, new thread, keeping it very short, ask people to state which of the two or three options they prefer, and letting an admin know if there is anyone going against the consensus; people can and will be blocked for doing so. You should alert the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League to the discussion. Neil╦11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I was going to bring in ArbCom because of the behavior "problems" I have had with the other user, not to solve the dispute. I did point people at WP:NFL and several others to Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Survey, but Chris jumped in and tried to change what the dispute was about. As I told you on my talk page, there are a number of people who see the need for an alternative solution. Listing by year of the game or by year of the season is disputed. I an supportive of a neutral solution. This was after a poll was used very early in the discussion (against my advice). If you haven't already, you can view Listing out highlights & Awards, 30 Request, and Resolution to Pro Bowl Years. I did want to share with you perhaps the most poignent statement by a third party-
"First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006... --Phbasketball6 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)"
Neil - Jmfangio has argued that: my edit is "unneutral", causes widespread confusion, and that various sources struggle with a common way to refer to this. Please know, by researching, that this is all false. I have never been arguing against the naming of the Pro Bowl articles or how they are referred. I am talking solely about "Pro Bowl selections" in regard to NFL players. When doing so, there is only factually accurate way of representing this, as I will show you. I urge you to read this, and it explains definitively that when talking about Pro Bowl selections, it is factually accurate to use the regular season year and factually inaccurate to use the year of the Pro Bowl itself. You could ask any football fan, and they'd all tell you the same thing - that this is how it's done. The only reason this is a debate is because one person decided to change the way things have been (correctly) done here for years. It's absolute insanity that I've been discussing this for weeks. It should be a no-brainer.►Chris Nelson15:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil - Please review Brett Favre where he is trying to get me into an edit war again. I adjusted some of the content in that article yesterday, and created a new spin of article List of career achievements by Brett Favre. I added the {{see also}} tag as well. Since then, he moved the see also into an individual section and then reordered a number of sections against WP:MOS. He also removed and adjusted content in the infobox as he saw fit. I went back and at least got the sections in order for him and re-added the wikilinks that should not have been removed. Surprisingly, he jumped in and removed the links again. I'm getting really fed up with this guy editing everything i touch. He wanted a "see also" section, so I at least tried to get it up to wiki standards...but I'm really out of patience with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is getting even more ridiculous: [9] Over the inclusion of something I have never seen discussed anywhere. I do not see practice squad information being discussed and it is very hard to confirm. Then, in the middle of me editing Dan Wilkinson, he jumped in and tried to screw with that edit. I'm really about to lose what little patience I have. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not editing anymore tonight, I can't take this guy. He won't reason, he won't listen, and he won't even respect the fact that content is being disputed. I've left his edits alone and he follows me around and editing things just to piss me off. I left him this message and i consider that a great courtesy that i didn't tell him to you know what. This is soooooo stupid. I know you're not here right now and most of this is just venting to blow off steam, but I'm just so fed up that this guy continues to operate without even so much as a temporary "block/ban". I will gladly provide you with the laundry list of crap i've had to put up with, but I hope that this recent venting of mine will be proof enough.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am collapsing my recent rantings. They're all valid, but now that I've had a second to cool off I'm gonna restate what I did there more succinctly. Chris continues to engage in edit wars. He has been trying to drag me into major edit war all night long and I really cannot say that I will remain here unless the warring stops and people respect guideline supported edits and general consensus. He adjusted content in the Brett Favre article that was recently added. I didn't even argue with that, but I did go back and re-order the sections per WP:MOS and undid the portion of his edits that removed wikilinks from the "disputed" content in the infobox ([10]). My edit summaries should allow you to follow what happened. This edit here might help.
Later, I went to address an issue with the height field in the NFLactive template. I removed that field due to the fact that new fields were now available. I proceeded to go through the 'what links here' articles and remove the now defunct height info and update it. Every so often I fixed other "issues" and made some minor edits. For example, on Tim Couch, I removed some information in the infobox that I have never seen in any other infobox and never seen any mention of this being good information to be included. Chris of course re-inserted the information without so much as an explanation (here). Eventually I got to Dan Wilkinson, which looked like this upon arival. I fixed all the WP:MOS issues, worked content from the trivia section in (and removed non-notable pieces), fixed the team affiliation in the infobox, and removed the career transactions section because the info was already mentioned in the article in the relevant places AND contained in an EL. Not surprisingly, chris jumped in and reverted one of my edits while i was editing the page. I didn't quite realize this and it led to this whoops. I really don't know why I'm being forced to deal with this, and it seems unreasonable that I should have to abandon these articles altogether. I go around asking for people to help (WT:NFL#Joe Montana) improve articles while Chris asserts ". I worked hard on the Wilkinson article, like I've done with all Dolphins player articles, so if you're just going to go around deleting content from them without good explanation I'm going to revert them." from this. Sorry for the length, but in order to catch you up, i feel it was appropriate.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Jmfangio's second-to-last comment:
Yeah, it hasn't been discussed anywhere. It was an idea I had so I implemented it. I've talked about it with a few other editors (Taylor21, Soxrock, Phbasketball6, Pats1, Wlmaltby3) and they all liked the idea so I've gone ahead and done it. It is all accurate, including the edit found at Tim Couch, and is not at ALL hard to confirm. Maybe it's hard for Jmfangio to confirm, but if that's the case he obviously doesn't know where to look. (Hint: KFFL.com)
I basically built the Dan Wilkinson article over from scratch, and have it on my watch list. Jmfangio did not provide good reason for his edits, and since I personally feel the article is better the way I had it, I reverted it. I'll continue to do so unless he would like to discuss it.
Not following him around, only checking out the most recently edited articles on my watch list. If he happens to be the editor, then oh well.
And although it might sound like I'm matching Jmfangio's paranoia, it sure seems like he has problems with edits, at times, only because I'm the editor. For example, I removed a (x1) from Clinton Portis' infobox next to NFL Rookie of the Year. Obviously, the (x1) is unnecessary because by definition, a rookie of the year award cannot be won more than once. It's overkill, and you could never find a group of people that would vouch for its presence. But he seems to get defensive because I'm the one doing the editing. Oh well, that's his deal.
If indeed, I did something wrong, you are sadly mistaken if you think wronging me as well makes it right.
Calling people "assholes" is offensive.
My post was intended to be humorous... and helpful. The OP will find more music fans at the Ents desk.
I've noticed all too great a tendency for Wikipedians to consider it acceptable to call each other "asshole" or all kinds of other abusive terms. Coming from an admin it's even less acceptable.
I'm immensely proud of my extensive record of helping people at the Ref Desks. I'm also one of the least bitey contributors you'll find.
I'm in a wonderful mood, thanks. Please don't be an asshole to newbies on the reference desk again. Neilム15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you've now called me an "asshole" three times. On my talk page, here and, indeed in an edit summary at the Ref Desk ([11]). Stop it. It's offensive. --Dweller15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, I haven't called you an asshole once; please do not put words in my mouth. Saying someone is being an asshole on one finite occasion, and flat out calling them an asshole are not the same thing. I apologise, however, if use of the term "being an asshole" upset you. How about, please don't be snarky and cruel to newbies on the Reference Desk again? Neilム15:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I know how to be cruel or snarky. Anyway, I'll trade you. I'll do my utmost not to be either of those things, if you desist from using insulting terms in a way that people could conceivably construe that that's what they're being called by you, rather than it merely being a word applied for one finite occasion. Then, we'll both have benefited from this rather inglorious exchange. Deal...? --Dweller15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I will try and be more delicate in my phrasing, you try to be nicer to new editors. Okay, deal. Neilム16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time I'm afraid. Why did you ask me, anyway? I haven't had anything to do with this. And what "obiter dictum" am I supposed to have made (unlikely, as I'm not a judge)? Neilム21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It does say on your front page feel free to ask you about your admin actions
Aha, sorry - I was looking for "Neil", didn't even spot I'd closed it under my old user name. Still, I don't see what there is to decide - the names do not go in the article. Neilム08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here, [13] . If you could apply your intellectual rigour to the situation it might save a lot of people a lot of time. Aatomic121:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I applied my intellectual rigour and made an edit to the article. As an editor, not as an administrator. And also note that you didn't once point me in the direction of Birmingham pub bombings (again confusing me why my editing this article became an issue you had to raise on WP:AN/I). Neilム13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Juan / Chris
Both of you, stop it, now. Please squabble between yourselves on your own talk page(s). There's nothing else that I can do, as the pair of you are dead set on fighting with each other endlessly over some really, really minor semantics and it's become tedious now. Juan, either file an user-conduct Request for Comment, or drop it. Any more of this endless complaining and sniping will be removed on sight. Neilム21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I will leave you alone if you wish and feel free to delete this, but as long as you read it I'm fine. It is true I have said I'm right many times, although I have proved it. I have NEVER said I don't care about any consensus, because a) Jmfangio has no consensuses; and b) because I would always respect a consensus if it were in place, or at least discuss it before making edits against it. So I'd appreciate you not accusing me of things that are untrue when it's only a result of you not knowing enough about what you're talking about. That's not how an admin should behave. You can delete this now I guess.►Chris Nelson22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, My userpage was brought before the ANI approximately one year ago, and it was determined through a consensus of users and admins alike, that it violated no policy. NPA pertains to USERS, not subjects. I am sorry that you don't like my user page, but it has been ajudged to violate no wikipedia policy...and as such I would prefer if you would refrain from removing items that you personally find offensive. If it is truly bothering you, then you are free to edit other pages and leave mine alone. Happy editing. Batman200509:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, once again, my page was brought before the Administrators Noticeboard over a year ago, and consenus was made by various admins and editors that while it may offend some, it does not violate wikipedia policy. As I said, i'm sorry you don't agree with my page, but your disagreement is not grounds for a block. Please stop threatening me. Batman200509:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, could you take a look at these [15][16][17] posted by User:W. Frank who has been warned for edit warring on these and other articles, can I remove these posts as they are intended to harass editors who disagree with his POV, he has posted the same on other article talk pages as well.--padraig11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Padraig. No, please don't remove his comments, even if you don't agree with them. It will just make things worse. Feel free to explain why you do not agree with his interpretation of policy, though. Neilム11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He is accusing editors of working as a team against him, simply because other editors disagree with his POV, as one of the editors name I take offence to this, there is a discussion here to try and resolve this issue that this editor has ignored and made clear on his talk page that he will continue to make his changes dispite and agreed compromise decided. I was of the opinion that article talk pages are intended only to discuss that article and its content, not for soapboxing in this fashion.--padraig11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It clearly states here Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. so I feel his attack should be removed.--padraig12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not disagree with you - the policy says that, and it would be technically correct to remove them. However, my recommendation is not to. Other admins might recommend otherwise. Neilム16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this AfD, shouldn't they only be closed as a withdrawal if the nominator was the only one that thought the article should be kept? --Eyrian 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Revocation of GFDL on images I have uploaded
The GFDL, like the GPL, is not a contract; thus, the initial author of an article written under the GFDL is not bound by its terms. I can, therefore, revoke the license by giving notice to the licensee (Wikipedia). Any language to the contrary in the GFDL is unenforceable. Therefore, until an intervening substantially-transformative edit occurs, all such submissions are subject to arbitrary revocation on mere notice to the publisher(s) by the original author, and upon revocation all publication must immediately cease.
Once a substantially-transformative edit occurs, copyright in the resulting work rests not with the original author but with the person doing the substantially-transformative edit, who is then obliged to relicense any further distribution under the terms of the license allowing the edit in the first place, and is prohibited from revoking that license by virtue of being the licensee on the original edit. Since such secondary licensees receive their licenses not from the original licensor, but from the licensee (whose rights have been terminated by the revocation), their licenses remain intact until they also receive actual notice of the revocation, and derivation licenses predicated on those licenses remain valid. It is probably possible for an original licensor to revoke these relicenses as well, but meeting the requirement for actual notice for termination is likely to be difficult.
All of this flows from the fact that a license that is not a contract cannot impose an obligation upon the licensor. It is also established law that a license cannot be made irrevocable without consideration, and there is no consideration received by the licensor for licenses granted under the GFDL (or GPL). There is simply no way to prohibit the original licensor (author) from revoking their grant of license, which is why you have to allow for author's perogative to delete. Neilム18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know why but you're on my watchlist and I noticed this comment. Is this about something in particular? Is this true? Everyone seems to imply that it is irrevocable but the contract/license difference you bring up is interesting, seems like I remember something like this from the two horrible semesters I once spent in Economics class, part of which pertained to contract law. IvoShandor18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is true, and it is about people wanting to move images I have uploaded to Commons without the courtesy of asking. Neilム18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil. IMO, if your image is already moved to commons or mirrored at answers.com, nothing can prevent them from being used no matter what. But I think you have a right to do what you are doing. The real problem is the copyright situation in Wikimedia projects being controlled by non-encyclopedic admins. This should be addressed rather than this or that image in particular. --Irpen18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The two that have been moved to Commons are going to be deleted as they failed to retain the chain of attribution. Neilム18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the Wikimedia Foundation's policy that the GFDL is irrevocable. If you would like to prove otherwise, you'd have to do so in a court of law. But merely arguing on-wiki isn't going to get you anywhere. You licensed your photographs under the GFDL and there are no take backs. --Cyde Weys03:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a contract doesn't mater, releases are defense against infringement claims
First let me say I find this behavior profoundly disturbing. It is well-known that free-license images are moved to Commons all the time without notifying the uploader, and to expect differently strikes me as conceited. The resulting deletions seem profoundly contrary to the goals of the project. While it is true that the GFDL is not a contract, that doesn't matter. Issuing a release prevents you from being able to enforce your copyright. There are many rights you can waive by simply making assertions as you did when you selected the GFDL license and copyright is one of them. ←BenB420:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done some research on this. Under British law, a license is revocable at any time upon serving notice in writing (I'm not sure what that would entail.) Wikipedia's servers are governed by US law, which allows for license revocation "during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant" 17 USC 203(a)(3). ←BenB400:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(Let's discuss here instead of Mike's page) The GFDL license is a conditional grant under copyright law, so the US law governing grants of copyright applies. ←BenB406:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The only legally recognized license is copyright. GFDL is only tacked onto copyright and can be revoked without a binding contract. Any interference of a user wishing to amend or revoke voluntary licenses by an admin causes the Foundation to be a party to copyright infringement since the admins are tacitly acting on behalf of the Foundation. The Foundation would be liable for damages. Malber20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Two things - 1, I won't agree or disagree with you as I'm leery of WP:NLT, but want to state I am in no way threatening any kind of legal action, whatsoever, in any way shape or form. 2, would you consider the situation to be any different given that the revoker is, themselves, an admin? Neilム20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. We're just users with a few extra buttons, not elite wingéd agents of Jimbo. I am interested in the IP's views, though. Neilム21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NLT: "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a 'legal threat'." However, I don't think that would stop an admin from blocking someone for arguing their copyright. Any admin on any Wikimedia project that uses the block tool to prevent an author from altering or revoking their licenses is causing the Foundation to commit copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether or not the author is an admin. As a matter of fact, it should be easier for authors to delete their own works to lessen the deleterious affects of having works published and distributed when the original author no longer wishes this to occur. Malber22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should point out that Malber is currently blocked for using sockpuppets to evade a ban, and as a general rule we don't allow blocked users to post on wiki, so if he says anything else, I'll have to remove it. Sorry Malber, but you really must learn how to play by the rules. --Cyde Weys22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
Your ongoing use of your admin tools to delete images on a massive scale to make a point is extremely disruptive, and irresponsible of an administrator. I apologize that it has to come to this, but as it seems you have no intention of stopping your deletion spree, I have blocked you for 24 hours. --Krimpet18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, can you agree to stop deleting your images until this is discussed properly and resolved? Sarah18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussing this with Neil in private, he has promised me that he will stop deleting his images, and discuss his concerns in the proper forum instead. I apologize for the misunderstandings here, and have unblocked him. --Krimpet19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome; now that you're back feel free to take a look at that section and see if you can do it better, since you may be more up on the situation. Nothing personal, I realize you were temporarily overheated. Happens to all of us. I hope people will be kind when it happens to me! --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I promise I won't make any hoax pages. Please tell me how to use Wikia. Also, how did you find my articles that I created? It didn't appear on the New pages page. how did you find it?
Thanks for your reply. My main concern is that the AfD never really rose above the level of name calling. As I said in my comment, the shortcuts tossed around, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH & WP:POVFORK didn't really apply. NOR requires advancing a position, and SYNTH requires synthesizing a position, which I didn't see in the article. And a POVFORK creates a different version of reality from another article. So just because someone pins a tag on an article, that doesn't mean it applies. Most of these tag comments were made without elaboration, so are hard to evaluate objectively. The one cogent argument was the question on encyclopedic value in the nom, repeated in one other comment, which I think I addressed by recasting it as a list.
Notwithstanding this, one of the delete votes was to keep the cited content and merge it back into the parent articles. Also if this was actually a POV fork, that is the proper way to address that anyway, because deleting a POV fork would create a non-NPOV (assuming it was not a tiny minority POV). So really deletion is not the proper solution.
I found this AfD while doing a background search for another article, so I didn't have time to work on it yesterday, and when I came back to it this AM, I saw you had closed it already. If you userfy it to my user space, I can take a crack at it and see if it can be cleaned up to stand as a list as I suggested, or to see if the WP:V items should be merged back in. Dhaluza00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Image deletions
Hey Neil. I think the Commons issue is resolved now, so would you be so kind to restore the remaining of these images? Thanks in advance. Melsaran (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I don't see how, as you seem to indicate, comments are unhelpful unless made in an RFC. What bothers me about your behavior is not that you made a mistake or two, as everybody makes mistakse; what bothers me is that you started deleting a substantial number of pages essentially out of spite. Aside from that, just because it is technically possible to have multiple copies of an image, does not make it a good idea, as per WP:CFORK. >Radiant<08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
4 != substantial. They have since been undeleted. Comments such as "Neil should be desysopped" are unhelpful because they make me feel uncomfortable - I would very much appreciate you either taking action on these comments or to stop making them. How would you feel about comments such as "Radiant should be desysopped" being made? Surely you would ask that person to either act on their comments or not make them? Neilム13:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I would be interested in learning why that person made those comments. Or to put it differently, if the result of my actions cause other people to leave me "uncomfortable" statements, perhaps I could learn a lesson from that. >Radiant<13:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's clear why you made the statements. The point is that most people seem to have accepted that the issue has been resolved - your view is the exception, not the rule. Neilム13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the issue is resolved (which is also why I don't think an RFC is at all necessary). I see no reason not to drop the matter. Happy editing, >Radiant<11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not challenging your good faith: I understand why you closed the debate. But why isn't an AFD an appropriate way for an editor to seek consensus about whether his article should exist? I've brought an AFD for an article I created to get the community's consensus on whether it complied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the editor was trying in good faith to create an article, and editors were edit-warring with him by deleting all the content and redirecting on the basis of a stale consensus created before the movie had been out. It's the editors who are deleting all the content without using the AFD procedure who are creating the problem, not the editor who wishes the content to remain and brought the AFD to avoid edit-warring. THF11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Neil,
My question is about the same as THF's. Perhaps it wasn't proper for me to nominate the article, but I didn't understand your justification for closing it. Was there some AFD rule I violated? Could you please point me to some kind of authority that shows I can't do what I did? It would help out a lot. If you can show me where I violated some procedure or guideline or whatever, then it would save me a lot of trouble. Feel free to respond here and I'll watch. Thanks! Noroton17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you please review this when you can (well in the next 24 hours would be nice) because I think what's going on there is crazy how majority seems to rule even though the majority hasn't given good reasons as to why they want it kept besides "he's important" and "I like him". So if you time please look over it and tell me if what's going on there is in fact legitimate.Sam ov the bluesand, Editor Review00:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Interpretations of NFCC#8
I saw your close of the TIME evolution cover debate, and thought it was a well-reasoned close. I did want to raise a few points though. Does this decision mean that if more relevant commentary were to appear in the article at some future point, the image could be restored? What would count as more relevant commentary? Also, thanks for actually mentioning the article in question (Intelligent design), as the nominator failed to do this - a failure that gets really annoying when looking through these discussions after the event. Anyway, I wondered if it is worth comparing four different approaches to commentary on an image:
Image:Time evolution wars.jpg in Intelligent design: "The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005. The cover shows God facing off against a chimpanzee"
Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg in Neville Chamberlain: "During his tenure as Chancellor, Chamberlain emerged as the most active minister of the government. In successive budgets he sought to undo the harsh budget cuts of 1931; he also took a lead in ending war debts, which were finally cancelled at a conference at Lausanne in 1932. In June 1933, Britain hosted the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Describing the event as the "most crucial gathering since Versailles," top U.S. newsmagazine Time featured Chamberlain on its cover, referring to him as "that mighty mover behind British Cabinet scenes, lean, taciturn, iron-willed... [I]t is no secret that Scot MacDonald remains Prime Minister by Prime Mover Chamberlain's leave."[2]"
Image:Burningmonk.jpg in Thich Quang Duc: "Browne's photographs quickly spread across the world wire services and leapt off the front pages of newspapers worldwide. [...] no news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one [...] In Europe the photos were hawked on the streets, and Communist China distributed millions of copies of the photo throughout Asia and Africa as evidence of “US imperialism”. One of Browne's photos remains affixed to the sedan in which Thich Quang Duc drove to his self-immolation and is part of a tourist attraction in what is now Ho Chi Minh City commemorating the event."
Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: "The photograph was extremely popular, being reprinted in thousands of publications. Later, it became the only photograph to win the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in the same year as its publication, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time." (from the lead section), plus Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima#Legacy and other sections.
Given the examples above, is it possible to come to an objective decision on NFCC#8 cases? There is a whole spectrum of way to add commentary, from a range of sources. What should be assessed? The relevance of the visual information to the commentary, the impact of the actual image, the lasting legacy, or what? I think some consideration (and this doesn't apply to the TIME evolution pic) should be given to the educational nature of historical images. I think the simplest way to put this is that sometimes old images are needed in history articles purely to increase the reader's understanding of the history. Text descriptions can only go so far, and the educational value of showing what things looked like at the time cannot be overestimated, in my opinion. This would apply even when the particular picture was not iconic or remembered as a picture. Carcharoth09:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the above probably belongs on a page giving examples of photo commentary. Sorry about that. I'd still be interested in your views if you have time. Carcharoth09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, of the four examples you give, only the latter two contain critical commentary on the image (note that critical is not used in the sense of criticism, rather in the sense of discussing the value/impact/legacy/etc of the image). I don't, personally, see how showing Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg adds to the current text when the current fair use criteria are applied. It is possible to come to a subjective decision - the important question as regards the NFCC#8 criterion is "is the image itself (not what the image portrays, or the fact the image exists) discussed within the article"? If yes, NFCC#8 is met. I agree that educational value of "what things looked like at the time" would be really useful; this is not, at present, within the criteria - and in the present climate, I don't forsee any attempt to make the less stringent or more inclusive being succesful. Neilム10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Maybe sustained impact is a better way to phrase all this. The two TIME images certainly had an impact at the time, but it needs distance in time to ascertain the historical legacy of something. My gripe is with 70+ years old images which are old enough, in my opinion, to qualify as genuinely historically educational (eg. Image:1heldeplatz.jpg), without the image itself having its own legacy. The problem seems to be people applying the letter of NFCC#8, rather than the spirit of it. Historical images that are educational due to their age are definitely in the spirit of NFCC#8, in my opinion. My evidence for the spirit comes from {{non-free historic image}}, which seems to have been meant for images of historic moments regardless of whether the image was itself notable with its own impact and legacy, and also, surprisingly to some, from the Foundation licensing policy itself: [19]: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." I can't interpret that any other way than to say that the WMF is saying that it is OK to use images just to illustrate historically significant event. NFCC#8, which is part of Wikipedia's response to the WMF policy, seems to be to go beyond what was intended. What do you think? Again, I'll need to copy this over to the main talk page. :-) Carcharoth11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've copied my comments over to WT:NFC, and invite you to do the same. It's probably best if I put my thoughts in that thread over there, instead of here. Carcharoth11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
