User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

→

Cause of death

Yes, we do categorize people by common cause of death. It's very logical, aids our users in their research, and I've done it for years. The only reason I can think of for not doing so is a tiny clique of "delete page regulars" trying to get rid of it, and hampering our users' ability to find such information. Badagnani 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should participate in the CFD discussions. If you think it should not have been deleted, take it to DRV instead of trying to get around it be miscategorising people. Neil ☎ 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're not aware, but we do "get around" deleted categories by placing those articles in categories one level above. That way, the information does not get "orphaned" and our users are able to find the information they need. We do categorize people by common cause of death and if Deaths by pneumonia was deleted, it was deleted wrongly--and you should create a DR entry to restore it, if you have the best interests of our users in mind. I should not have to waste time to create a DR entry because the category should never have been deleted in the first place. Badagnani 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it was deleted wrongly, go to DRV. I feel it was correctly deleted, and can stay deleted. I should not have to waste time asking you to stop using bad categories on articles, but there you go. Neil ☎ 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I currently have Stede Bonnet at WP:FAC, and a question over a missing source was brought up. In the article, there is a sentence that says: "Bonnet's flag is featured in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End as Capitaine Chevalle's flag." I could not find any sources verifying this claim. Could you possibly look into this matter? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else helped me out. Thanks, anyway. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Far too quick for me - I was asleep! The article looks pretty good, I will have a look at it anyway. Neil ☎ 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP/notability concerns

Thanks for resolving that AfD. I have an additional question if it is alright. I was looking at this link search, for other articles sources to those same military records. Some of the ones I found were Jamaat al Dawa al Quran, Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi, Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, and Hussein Salem Mohammed. All of these are/revolve around BLPs. I'm concerned about those BLP concerns and also notability as well. Would you mind taking a look at those four and giving me just a general feel on whether my concerns are justified? I'm tempted to AfD all four (and there are a great many more, related to this sample). • Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think AFD should decide. Don't mass nominate them, as they are all very different cases. Neil ☎ 08:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy block

I am well aware of the criteria imposed upon DG at the conclusion of the ArbCom (after one of the editors informed me he was posting to the Jack the Ripper page, I took the time to read up on it as well as the RfCs and the entirety of his User Talk page). I agree that the user has a lot to offer the project inhis vigilance. While I understand that he violated the terms of his restriction, I think that perhaps 3 days is a bit steep for the infraction. He was discussing his interpretation of my actions, and while he was somewhat uncivil, I would propose that we givie him a bit of a break, and lessent the length of the block to a single day, and just ask him to not reintroduce the same bulk edit (instead seeking a new consensus for his edit, which was edited by others over the past month or so). I am not pollyannish enough to assume that DG's going to become less edgy overnight, I think that he needs to see that fellow editors aren't out to get him, which seems to be clearly what he's thinking; why else would he be so defenseive and confrontational?. If we give him a single break, he might act positively on that. Once he starts to understand that we aren't out to get his edits, he might relax a bit, and be a lot more fun to work with. I am just suggesting that we offer him a 'do-over'.
I should state that I have never worked with DG before, do not know him in real life,and have no vested interest outside the above in submitting my requestion for blocking reconsideration. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that I only blocked him for 1 day, not 3. But he's been unblocked now. Neil ☎ 07:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

I saw the brief note you left when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda‎.

I was frankly perplexed to read that you did not think the {{blp}} concerns were addressed. It seems to me that they were addressed, in detail, with some of your fellow administrators stating firmly that, in their opinion, there was no valid {{blp}} concern.

The most vocal critic from the "violating {{blp}} camp" kept insisting that the allegations would violate {{blp}} unless third party sources could "prove" the allegations were true. A position that is directly counter to WP:VER -- the first sentence of which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth"

Nominator raised his concern on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Noticeboard) JoshuaZ, who I believe is also an administrator, offered his opinion that there was no {{blp}} concern.

I asked for clarification on WP:AN/I, as to whether this interpretation of {{blp}} held merit. Opinion was split. You would have a better idea as to which of the participants there are administrators, and which weren't. (Here is the last link, prior to the thread being archived. Go to "policy issues".)

So, you can understand why I am perplexed because you seemed to have dismissed all the counter-arguments to this {{blp}} concern.

So, I would really appreciate you explaining your decision more fully. Geo Swan 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a footnote that Joshua himself later endorsed deletion on the AfD in question. • Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there's more to explain, Geo, and am surprised you wanted further clarification. To me, it read like consensus was in firmly favour of deletion. If we solely counted numbers, it was 15 to 7 in favour of deletion, and given that many of the keep arguments were quite flimsy (Keep, it is notable summed up a few of the arguments, and one was even down as a "weak keep"). I hope that clears things up. If not, you have every right to request a formal review of any deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neil ☎ 09:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the policy, {{Afd}} is not a vote.
If I understand the policy, the closing administrator has considerable discretion.
If I understand the policy is expected to make a judgement as to whether artugments those participating in the discussion comply with policy. If their arguments don't comply with policy, I believe you have the discretion and responsibility to discount those arguments.

The {{blp}} argument advanced was that --articles can't contain reports of allegations from official sources, because the official sources can't be trusted, and those who had allegations leveled against them might be innocent after all.-- I asked those advancing that view to reconcile it with WP:VER. None of those advancing the {{blp}} argument made any attempt to reconcile their interpretation with WP:VER. So, I don't understand why you paid any attention to their views.

You write that you: "...are not sure there's more to explain." If you really are prepared to answer questions, and you really endorse that interpretation of {{blp}}, you could offer your own reconciliation of that interpretation with WP:VER. Geo Swan 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AFD is not a vote, yes, I have discretion, and to my judgement, that was a stone cold delete. BLP issues were one of the concerns, whether the list is notable or not (just saying something is notable does not make it so - where are the sources discussing this list?), whether we should be reproducing a list, and so on. It added up to a delete for me. If you disagree, go and appeal at DRV. I have no interest in Wikilawyering the point. Neil ☎ 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I think I have been completely ciivl to you.

Should I have jumped immediately to wikipedia:deletion review? Contacting you first is recommended by the procedure. Under the circumstantce I question the propriety of characterizing my civil questions as "wikilawyering".

You became an administrator because the community put its trust in you.

I believe that grant of trust places an extra burden of accountability on administrators.

You may not like being held accountable for your actions, but it is, I believe, part of the burden you assumed when you agreed to serve as an administrator.

No one expects administrators to allow themselves to be engaged in an endless debate over their decisions. But it seems to me that you didn't even make a token attempt to address my point that the {{blp}} argument advanced could not be reconciled with WP:VER.

And I am disappointed in your answer immediately above. If {{blp}} concerns was merely one of your concerns I think it was a mistake that you didn't mention the other concerns in your official conclusion.

I am not saying this to be provocative. And, given your stated views above, I am prepared to have you choose not to respond. But I wanted my concerns over how you carried out the community's trust in you to be on record. Geo Swan 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a very straightforward and obvious closure to make, as a "delete". I will not argue the point ceaselessly, and I haven't suggested you have been anything other than civil. By Wikilawyering, I mean I neither have the time nor the inclination to get into an indepth policy debate about how admins should close AFDs. As you keep raising it, WP:V specifies that all information on Wikipedia must achieve verifiability, not truth. This does not mean it should be untrue; it means that information must be verifiably true. That it be true goes without saying, or should. Reliable sources are needed - one primary source alone was not (in the eyes of many of the AFD contributors) enough to meet the (necessarily stiff) requirements of WP:BLP. I have npw explained to you why your article was deleted three times now - because the consensus to delete was obvious. If you disagree, go to WP:DRV and seek further input. Please stop asking the same questions over and over just because you don't agree with the answer. Neil ☎ 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a content review.

You gave me one more reply than I expected. For the record I believe that reply contains your first attempt to address the discrepancy between WP:VER and this interpretation of {{blp}}, not your third.

The reason I didn't expect this final reply is that I have found your tone inappropriately grumpy. That is just one guys's opinion.

Goodbye Geo Swan 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as grumpy. I have a feeling your understanding of WP:V is what is leading to your confusion. Requiring proof something is true is exactly what verifiability is. For people other than the contributor to know a contributed fact is true, that fact must be verifiable. That is why we have verifiability requirements - so we know something to be true. Neil ☎ 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to stretch this past your patience, but you did you see other administrators don't agree with you? User:GRBerry for one. This doesn't mean you are wrong. But I think it does mean I am not out of line to think that your interpretation remains open to question. Geo Swan 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it's not uncommon (at all!) for administrators to not all agree. As I said, I think I took the correct action, but you are free to seek further clarification or review at DRV. Neil ☎ 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for the semi-protection. NHRHS2010 talk 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence

This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look, and it seems accurate in the most part. I'm not sure I would describe every individual involved as "disruptive and detrimental", but your opinion's valid. Neil ☎ 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in my personal opinion the actions were disruptive and detrimental, though at least to me it appeared that everyone was doing what they felt was the correct course of action and nobody was being disruptive just for the sake of it. I'm in the weird (at least for me) position of being able to see everyone's point of view and why they did what they did, even if I don't agree with it.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which course of action did you agree with? I won't be cross if you say "not yours, Neil". Neil ☎ 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD to AN

FYI, I posted this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns, which may involve you, too. Bearian 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

Check your email, please! Maralia 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it, five minutes and I'm on it. Neil ☎ 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should all be done now. Neil ☎ 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Still at it

Now I'm a troll. -- But|seriously|folks 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

and [1] and [2]. -- But|seriously|folks 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes an indefinite block before long. Neil ☎ 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post that link, but you beat me to it. I'm just glad he came up with the references to save the article before getting blocked.--SarekOfVulcan 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward Low

Karanacs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I've never been called a "pernicious harridan" before, so thank you for giving me a new experience and a big laugh :) Karanacs 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Camp Minsi

Could you undelete the page for a while. I'd like to go back and look at the information that was lost. Also, I'd like to redirect the page using this text, #REDIRECT [[Minsi Trails Council]] {{Scouting redirect from merge}} I think that redirecting the page would have been better than deleting it, and as soon as we recover from the fallout of user:Minsi Patches nominating seven other camp articles for deletion in retaliation, I might ask for a deltion review. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't undelete it, but I can userfy it - would that be ok? Neil ☎ 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

what does userfy it mean?--evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

List of snowclones DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of snowclones. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [3] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [4] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [5] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wisegeek one is a blog, but the Psychology Today link is good. The findarticles one is dubious, as it's a piece by a student journalist. But even if we give it the benefit of the doubt, that's two sources. Eight more to find. Neil ☎ 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, Could I please get a copy of the deleted article List of snowclones. I don't have any feelings about the article being part of the encyclopedia, but I did want to read through the content again. Maybe this is a "GFDL" request? I think User:Gandalf61 asked for a copy in his user area, and that would be good enough for me. JackSchmidt 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I put up a request on del review, content review, request for userfy which is probably the right place? I know your talk page has been a bit busy with people putting the wrong things here, but I wasn't really sure where to put the request. JackSchmidt 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it the first time, Jack - it's now been userfied to User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones. Neil ☎ 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Double jeopardy

I saw you suggested deletin all Guantanamo articles, all at once, over on WP:AN/I. I see you asked why no one suggested this before. Well, someone did suggest it before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer. Geo Swan 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we using a 16-month old AFD as precedent? WP:CCC. Neil ☎ 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Hi, Neil. I was glad to see you review Arthur Rubin's revert and apologize to DreamGuy. DreamGuy's block log still looks the same, though, and is sure to be pointed at by any future blockshoppers for years to come. Perhaps you would consider putting a note in the log itself, by means of a one-second block? The way Alex Bakharev did here, I mean. I know that note made a big difference to Bonafide.hustla. Regards, Bishonen | talk 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) .

A good idea. Done. Neil ☎ 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Er, how about a note here? Bishonen | talk 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed the entry from the log, which should cover it. Neil ☎ 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Self-replicating machine

What you and other administrators have done is to allow Charles Michael Collins to make such statements regarding other people as to constitute abuse of Freitas and Merkle and others, including me. At no time did any administrator complain of statements made by Charles Michael Collins, nor did you block him to prevent further abuse of other researchers into the field of self-replicating machines. You and other administrators denigrate the complaint which I made but, you seem to have no problem with allowing people to make statements about which a complaint is warranted. On this basis, Wikipedia does not deserve my assistance. You should have blocked Charles Michael Collins so that his postings would not offend others. That you did not do. You and the other administrators who blocked me are hypocrites. William R. Buckley 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grooveshark. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"White guilt"?

I still think the Hitler pic is offensive, btw (picture bin Laden with a cutsy caption before suicide bombers), and is also unacceptable, because it makes his legacy cute and thus less offensive. But it seems that other people think pro-Hitler material is acceptable.

But I get the impression you called me white. At that I take offense. :) Guettarda 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear ... I apologise! The pic may or may not be cutesy, depending on your point of view, but there's plenty of perfectly mainstream movies / TV shows / books / musicals / etc that have merrily poked fun at Hitler. "The best way to confront our fears is to laugh at them". It's unfair to say it's "pro"-Hitler (it is certainly not intended to be, and to the majority, I don't think it would be seen as such). I think it's funny, because it makes him look stupid. Neil ☎ 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page... Word...

Schedule - Haha, right on. Scarian ^Talk 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

That's kind of funny... in my second RfA just a month and a half ago, you opposed, stating that you thought "another few months of familiarisation would be beneficial." :-P

The thing is, I'm not entirely certain. User:RyanLupin just asked me on the 9th if I'd considered running for adminship, and I told him then (less than three weeks ago) that I didn't think it had been long enough since my last one. However, seeing as how you were one of the opposition last time and feel now that I'd pass easily, I'm a little more willing to give it a shot.

If you do wish to nominate me, I will accept it. If you had in fact forgotten RfA #2 and wish to wait a bit longer, I will understand. And if you have any advice at all, whether you nominate or not, I would be more than happy to receive it. Thank you for your kind words, and please let me know once you make a decision. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although I've spread more into CfD and done a bit less in AfD. For convenience, here's some of the recent discussions I've been involved with: CfD Speedy Rename (completed about 15-20 renames); AfD's: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (my nom); the recent mess with the scout camps takes 6, 7, 8, an ANI post and a SSP case; 9, and 10 (my nom). CFD's include 1 2 3 4. I've also closed a few obvious snowballs here and there, which may or may not be included in the above list, I'm really not sure.

And I do know by now that Mr. Russell is far more than "apparently notable". He's been haunting me, I think, I keep coming across his name in articles all over the place. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You blackmailer. :-P Fine, I'll work on it. My first project was to help find references for articles, so I should be able to get some of them done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit of work because most of what's written about him seems to be written, so isn't as easily accessible. With midterms having just finished up, I should be able to get back to working on it some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hersfold (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:FLIR Systems

Thanks for semi-protectng the article. However, the anon IP now blanked the talk page, could you go ahead and block the anon, they were already warned and (assuming all three IPs are the same person) have been blocked on the other two accounts. Thanks. Aboutmovies 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the editing pattern of these three IP addresss, I have blocked them all for 6 months, as static IPs belonging to FLIR Systems, solely being used to vandalise FLIR Systems. Neil ☎ 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully they'll learn its useless to vandalize. Aboutmovies 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

per your RFA support

"Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)"

That's exactly why I went on a nominating spree recently. I figure we'll need at least twice the admins that we have right now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about twice, but every extra one will be a boon. Neil ☎ 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned Low FAC

Resolution: I checked all of my computers, and it's not optimal on any of them. As a voice for the "we are not all teenagers on Wiki" :-) crowd, I'd like to ask you to rearrange that section so that the quote isn't directly opposite the image. Even on my screens that are set at higher than 800 x 600 resolution (which is my preference, even with my eyeglasses :-), I get a 3-column effect that's not great and looks too busy. Guarda del costa is still wrong; I'm sure the PR guys can figure that one out. I'll look at the dashes right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any more dash problems. How come two of the block quotes don't end in any punctuation? There's a big issue about punctuation of quotes at WP:MOS that I completely do not understand, so I can't opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted to them: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you're managing to hold it together with Leranedo's edits to this article. I'm pretty sure that I'd have been tearing my hair out by now. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which - I've sent you an email, Neil :) Maralia 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. It seems WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Brilliant prose are less ships that pass in the night and more ships that sail on opposite sides of the planet. Of different planets, even. Neil ☎ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made more edits today, to clear up some of the introduced nonsense and revise wording that I felt I could improve. I found a few issues I wanted to discuss before changing; I'll drop you another note about those after I reread. One potential issue that I recall clearly: is it possible your "Isle Haute in Nova Scotia" is actually Isle au Haut, Maine? Maralia 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another note about the same sentence: the Isles of Shoals are technically off the coast of both New Hampshire and Maine. In a weird coincidence, I've spent quite a bit of time on these islands (when I first started working on this article you hadn't yet added this fact—plus the islands are 500+ miles from where I live). Small world! Anyway, if I am correct about Isle au Haut above, you could simply refer to all these islands as "off the coast of New England". Maralia 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isle Haute is definitely an island in the Bay of Fundy, off Nova Scotia - see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I'm surprised we don't have an article on it yet. Neil ☎ 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to challenge the existence of an Isle Haute in Nova Scotia, but rather, to point out that if a source merely said "Isle Haute" it could conceivably be the Maine island. I wasn't able to find anything in the footnotes to clarify either way—it turns out that (because I was editing the subsection) I was stupidly trying to look it up in the wrong footnotes. Nevermind! Let me know if you have a problem with any of the changes I made earlier today. Maralia 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oof, I sounded more defensive than I meant to be there. I don't think it means Isle au Haut. The changes all look awesome to me, thank you so much for your help. Neil ☎ 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rfa nom

Something else we can do is create more admins. If anyone wants nominating for RFA, let me know.

(after seeing the discussion on the village pump) If you'd be willing to evaluate me as a possible candidate, I'd be up for it. It's sort of been in my long term plans, but if you look at my contribution history you'll see that haven't exactly been in any kind of rush. But if there is a need for more mop holders, I'd be willing. Cheers! henrik•talk 21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

edits

What issues do you have? Provide examples so I can see. Leranedo 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine I will review it and get back to you. Leranedo 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There. Feel free to reply.

Re:Adminship?:

I really am flattered - this has been the second propsal in as many months, but I really feel I must decline again sorry. I know I'm up to the task, but I don't feel I've earnt back some of the crap I've caused here over the years and I'm not thinking about adminship for at least another 2 months at least. I don't think I'd be wise to allow myself to get nominated yet, and I'd hope people would appreciate my wisedom later down the track - people want intelligent admins and I don't me running would fufill that. I know I'll get a million opposes in the first day. You are very kind, and later down the track, you are very welcome to ask again, but right now I don't think it's a good idea. Your quest for new admins is noble, but if you really wanted some great ones, try getting users such as SandyGeorgia to come around - she's been declining for ages and she's simply brilliant. She could make 'cratship if she wished. Cheers and keep in touch. :) Spawn Man 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd love to have you coach me some. :) Spawn Man 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to know everything! Possibly PRODs and such, the blocking/banning ins and outs etc etc. Just a general overview. Spawn Man 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Need your help with this one

I've been going through old images to learn from my mistakes and so forth. I have a big concern about why File:Shinyblack.jpg was deleted and also that there is now a permanent edit history entry stating that it was deleted becuase it was a "photograoh of private person who probably doesnt realize she's here". The photograph was taken by me of a girl I dated and the picture was completely my property. I have had many image difficulties but I dont see this one being one of them. I'm also a little bothered that someone might see this and think I knowingly uploaded some picture of some stranger to the internet which can open the door to some very serious things espeically since she was wearing a provocative outfit. Any advice about this? This one just doesn't seem very fair and implies I actually committed an offense against this girl. Thanks for your help. -OberRanks 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was rightly deleted, unless you had her permission to upload the image, and I suggest you just let it lie. Neil ☎ 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same situation with File:LadiesTights.jpg. Personal photograph, taken by me, at a party. See no reason why it should have been deleted under the clause "privacy concerns" as it again implies I violated the rights of the people in the photo. I don't feel that I did since it was my picture to begin with. Thoughts? Thanks AGAIN for your help. -OberRanks 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Same response. Neil ☎ 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you have a picture with other people in it you need their permission to upload it? I really thought that a photo taken by someone was thiers once they took it and they didnt the permission of the people in it to use it. I will let it lie, I'm just trying to understand the concept. -OberRanks 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Any photo of a person in a "provocative outfit" should only be uploaded with their permission. You can see why that should be, right? Neil ☎ 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. She actually knew the photo was on Wikipedia but that is beside the point. I bring this up (story time) because I once designed a computer game proposal which allowed you to put in pictures of various people and it showed them wearing a Starfleet uniform. Anyway, I sent this game to a few computer companies with some sample screenshots, one of them being of a friend of mine from college which I put into the game as well as his wife (then g-friend). The pictue of him and his wife were from an original I had taken in college, some 10 years earlier. Anyway, when he found out about this he was FURIOUS. We made up later but to make a long story short we went to see a lawyer The answer I got was that the photo from college was my property and I could pretty much do anything I wanted with it. The only thing I could not do was publish his real name and other personal info. But the photo, so said the lawyer, was mine. Kind of like Flickr or Webshots maybe? Every day people upload photos of others there and dont have the individuals permission to do it. So, the question then is: If you have a photo on Wikipedia that YOU took, do you have to have the permission of everyone in it before you can release it to Public Domain? Thanks for your thoughts tonight. Hope this isnt bothering you. (P.S.- Take a look at the deletion review I asked for about a FOIA picture which was taken off by a bot. Your input about that would be welcome as well.) -OberRanks 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I never got the game to sell but run it privately. Its actaully pretty neat. -OberRanks 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) The picture is your property, yes, but I think it's the morally right thing to do to gain permission before publishing such an image to a widely-viewed public forum such as Wikipedia, and irrespective of rules-lawyering about copyright, you would find very few people ready to back your stance. Do you have a link to the FOIA picture's DRV? Neil ☎ 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your logic makes sense that personal photos on Wikipedia should be rarely employed. With this experience, I will most likely never upload one again. But I wonder how far one can take it i.e. if someone is in the far background of a personal photo where you can barely see them, does it invade thier privacy. Who know? As far as the FOIA military picture goes, here is the link which states such photos are public [14]. Thanks as always. -OberRanks 14:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, a link to the DRV discussion. I know the relevant NARA link - it's http://www.archives.gov/faqs/index.html#copyright, which states all info they hold is in the public domain unless credited to someone else. Neil ☎ 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here [15]. BTW- all is well in other areas we talked about. Sent my e-mail, got a cold response but understanding is there and I did my best to state no bad feelings at least on this end. Also e-mailed OTRS about the page we discussed. Guess we'll see. -OberRanks 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Q?

Ah, so you're now a Q? :) Acalamari 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's time to put an end to your trek through the stars, Acalamari! *click* :) Neil ☎ 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, congratulations at passing your request for Q-ship! :) Acalamari 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

And because someone pointed it out to me! Thanks a lot for the defence (even tho I was unaware of it). I've posted to Viridae too as he has a point - such advanced behaviour from such a new person would now have me on quite a high alert - it can be explained if you know where to look! - another case of rebranding I guess - maybe it's a UK thing! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Unless there's a good reason for it, you may want to consider noting the old name on your userpage here to avoid any further confusion. Neil ☎ 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment - to be honest I've been relatively inactive here until recently. It is available along with too much other stuff though. If I'm likely to be here much I'll look at changing it but "ultra low profile" was the desire at the time! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I read about allowing I.P.'s to make new pages... Was that just an idea being put through the village pump or was it a discussion about it actually being implemented? [I recall you writing something about it somewhere, apologies but my memory fails me] I was just wondering for clarification's sake... Cheers in advance. Scarian ^Talk 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, but in case anyone else wonders the same thing - see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia. Neil ☎ 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's horrible - haha... You guys are gonna have your work cut out for you. Good luck! Scarian ^Talk 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss#Oppose

Hi, Could you have a quick look at the history here, people keep striking & unstriking User:Professional Deletionist's opposition, which I doubt is helpful? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He's registered a new user name (User:Snakese), so the "oppose" is okay. Neil ☎ 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So if a user is indef blocked for being disruptive, they can just create a new user acct and that's okay? We should probably amend WP:SOCK to reflect this change. :/ Lara❤Love 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a username block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thank you for the clarification! Lara❤Love 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the account was blocked due to the name, the user was not blocked - he was just asked to create a new account. Neil ☎ 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comedy

That was hysterical. However I'd laugh harder if it wasn't for the unmerciless pile of utter crap and the unmanageable backlog at CAT:CSD we're all looking forward to. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arb-com request loosely regarding you

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I've just made a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters which involves a user you've blocked a couple of times, Asgardian (talk · contribs). I'd appreciate your input in the request as an uninvolved blocking admin, if you can find the time, Appreciated, Hiding Talk 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Will have a look. Neil ☎ 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I respect you.

I think your edits to the talk page were off the mark. You are correct, opposition to any standard is fine, but there is a point where it becomes tendentious and trollish. Look at the comments on various forums for the past few months, and look at the contributions. Tell me if you still see it the he same. Very respectfully, Mercury 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for the interested reader, I think this is referring to User_talk:Kmweber#Block.3F (Mercury, please correct me if I'm wrong).

I have looked at the comments, and I have looked at the contributions - I did so before posting my statement to Kurt's page. I still feel the user doesn't deserve a block. Is the opposition causing disruption? Only when people express their outrage that someone has a different RFA standard to their own. Particularly when there was an RFC on Kurt's actions, which very much came out against any kind of action over this. Neil ☎ 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I do understand where you are coming from. I'm really seeing it from a time standpoint. The time spent on discussing this in various venues everytime this comes up. As an aside, I personally would not have indeffed it, but I support Nicks there. Very respectfully, Mercury 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Adopting Barnstar
		For adopting a user I User:Swirlex give you this adopting Barnstar.

Thanks for the offer of help

I think he's just trying to browbeat me into submission now...trying to make it easier to give in than to just fight it out. The blatant disregard for the entire concept of community consensus from a community servant is troubling, to say the least.

As long as I've been here, I've never been involved into an Arbcom case, and in all this time I've done my damndest to avoid finding out how it works...I don't want to be involved in schoolyard spats; I want to write. Can I just refuse to participate altogether? It just seems like even responding to it would be a form of giving to him, by implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of what he's doing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad situation

Your comments as a neutral admin on General (United States) would be welcome. Please see Talk:General_(United_States)#Investigation_into_non-consensus_merger. Thank you very much. -OberRanks 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As the other party to this dispute, I agree that an administrator might need to get involved. See [[16]] for information on the dispute. OberRanks reverted my edits for invalid reasons. Then I explained why his reasons were invalid, and restored my edits. Then he ignored my explanation and reverted again. And that's been repeated a few times now. It appears that he's unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policy and resolve disputes by discussion, so you might have to ban him. Thanks. - Shaheenjim 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating three copies of exactly the same article under Lieutenant General, General and General of the Armies against a merger vote is what this about it. Ane beleive me, the policy violation isnt on my end. -OberRanks 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the invalid reason I mentioned earlier. My explanation of why it's invalid is at [[17]]. As you can see, OberRanks is still violating Wikipedia's dispute resolution process by refusing to address my explanation of why it's invalid. - Shaheenjim 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is invalid because "Creating three copies of exactly the same article under Lieutenant General, General and General of the Armies against a merger vote is against policy." There you go. -OberRanks 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just a repeat of the original invalid reason. It doesn't address my specific explanation of why it's invalid, and it's still invalid, as my explanation explains. - Shaheenjim 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I am sorry to fill your page with this. SJ isnt willing to work with me and has gone so far as to ask forr my banning from Wikipedia [18]. Your opinion is welcome in the original complaint, i.e. 3 carbon copy articles created to circumvent a failed merge vote. Thanks and soprry again about your page becoming a battle ground for this. -OberRanks 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to back off from this for 2 to 3 days, but as we now have a personal attack in an edit history [19] (where I am called "self centered") perhaps a warning to SJ is in order that this kind of behavior isnt called for. It certianly wasnt when I was Husnock and engaged in similar antics. Again, very deepest apologies for your talk page turning into a battlefield. -OberRanks 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a ban is in order here. There's no need for admin intervention in what is basically a content dispute. I notice there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#First_section_break, which you are both engaged in, and I think the best solution is to continue that. There's no need for it to spiral onto other pages. Neil ☎ 09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the splash of cold water. I reported all this becuase I thought the user was breaking policy on purpose and still think that. But, Ive done what needed to be done and got others involved per WP:CON which we seem to be reaching. I think a warning to the other user is called for, especially in light of calling me "self centered" in an edit history as well as the pretty obvious attempt to hide a merge by carbon copying the same article onto three different pages. But, beside all of that, thank you for your help. I've done what I can here and will move on and work with the very same user now to make the article better. -OberRanks 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. This is concerning [20]. Any user stating that they will space out edit warring to circumvent WP:3RR is disruptive I feel. I dont know what else to do about this user, especially in light of this "warning". Thoughts? -OberRanks 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done

As requested, have tidied up the comment. Regards. Asgardian 05:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. Neil ☎ 10:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I damn near woke the whole house up when I burst out in laughter after reading your donation banner here. I must say it is blunt and to the point, my one regret is that it doesn't meet size requirements for our Featured Pictures becuase that definiately deserves to be one :) -- an unlogged in TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, those darn requirements are unfair. Neil ☎ 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies dispute

Someone reverted one of my edits because they thought my edit was incorrect[21]. I asked them what part of my edit they thought was incorrect, and they explained their objection. My edit was correct and their objection was invalid, so I explained that and restored my edit[22]. They have never responded to my explanation, but OberRanks continues to revert my edit[23]. I have warned him multiple times that he was violating Wikipedia's dispute resolution by reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page, but he continues to do it. Therefore I request that you ban him. You have suggested that we resolve this dispute by talking on the talk page. And I'd be happy to do it. I've tried to do it. But if he refuses to respond to my comments on the talk page, then there's nothing I can do. Note that the discussion is located here[24].

OberRanks might respond with some objections he's raised in the past about other disputes, having to do with merges, consensus, ownership, and personal attacks. Those objections are invalid, as I've explained before. But I won't bother explaining that again here, because they're not relevant to this particular dispute. - Shaheenjim 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look at the situation over the next few days. I recommend not suggesting other users be banned for disagreeing with you, though - nobody's getting banned over this. Neil ☎ 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the alternative? If you think just talking to him will help, then you can try it. But I've already talked to him about it, and he doesn't seem to respond to that. - Shaheenjim 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is almost laughable and I'm not even going to offer a response. But I will add that SJ has had problems with more than one editor [25] [26] and has shown heavy article ownership tendencies. And as far as not working with him or talking, I think the lengthy talk page discussions on three different articles, as well as where I have asked this user to work with us and not against us, have proven where I stand. I will say nothing further on this. Apologies to Neil for taking up his time. -OberRanks 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I predicted, all invalid objections that aren't relevant to this particular dispute. Note that the discussions on other pages regarding the General of the Armies article also aren't relevant to this particular dispute. - Shaheenjim 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time today to look into it fully. I will do so tomorrow. Try, both of you, to keep the squabbling on my talk page to a minimum. Neil ☎ 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My final answer to all of this can be found here [27]. Neil, thank you for your patience and the best to both you and SJ. Good night. -OberRanks 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the message on the article talk page covered it. Stop edit warring, continue to work together, stop tattling on each other. Neil ☎ 09:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

To my big surprise, it seems my RfA was relatively uncontroversial and now that less than an hour remains seems very likely to pass. I of course attribute this in whole to your excellent nomination, and I would like to say I'm very grateful. I have a few days to learn the ropes before the great flood (which hopefully wont materialize). If you see me doing anything wrong, I implore you to give me a good whack on the head as soon as possible. I guess this technically should go into your spambox (yes, I have read your talk header), but as this isn't a mass message, I hope you won't mind me making an exception. henrik•talk 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into a (manly) group hug, it was uncontroversial because you've been a very good editor! If you were insane or evil, it would not have mattered how good the nomination statement had been. I dion't think I'll need my whacking stick, but if you do ever have any questions my talk page and my email are always open. Neil ☎ 10:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ME/CVS Vereniging

Hello Neil, I didn't expect you to delete the article ME/CVS Vereniging since no concensus was reached and the article was still being edited by Neozoon. Could you explain your decision? Regards, Guido den Broeder 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guido. For the reader - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ME/CVS_Vereniging. I thought there was a consensus to delete. Ignoring any accusations of bad faith (concidentally, bad faith in themselves), of the six arguments for deletion, most cited few reliable independent sources, failure to meet WP:CORP, and no indication of notability. The three arguments to keep revolved around asserting the topic was notable, and had many reliable independent sources. In making a closing judgement, I thought the balance of the arguments was towards deletion. Review of the article failed to show many reliable independent sources. You are free to request a review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neil ☎ 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Guido den Broeder 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil, could you please mail me both the article and its talk page? Regards, Guido den Broeder 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

REVOLUTION MOTHER

If, as part of the deletion decision for REVOLUTION MOTHER, you decided to put a block on its persistent re-creator, be aware that he had two IDs: user:Stevenearl and user:Lraesiemanymnevets - which, read backwards, is a charmingly innocent confession of sockpuppetry. JohnCD 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I already blocked them both - I did spot the cunning ruse! Neil ☎ 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

i would like to know why you have blocked the Revolution Mother page?skate1234

Because it has been deleted 15 times and you kept recreating it. Neil ☎ 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Closure of AFD for EuroBasket 2007 Final

Hi,

You forgot to put an {{afdfull}} notice on the Talk Page of EuroBasket 2007 Final after you closed the AFD. I did it for you. Please remember to do so in the future.

--Richard 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Richard. Bad Neil :'( Neil ☎ 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take over an ANI thread?

Hi. I noticed that you're online and watching ANI, so I thought you might be willing to take over a thread I've been helping on. Every so often I'll help out and work on ANI queries that don't necessarily require sysop tools to resolve, and up till now, "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing and personal attacks by single-purpose account" was one of those. However, one of the users involved in the dispute has just created a mind-blowingly obvious sockpuppet to continue an edit war (or someone else is trying to set this user up to be blocked as a puppetmaster), and I think one of you admins would be better suited to work the developing weirdnesses at the article in question. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You just missed me at the time. Has it been resolved yet? Neil ☎ 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant Street deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NE2 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Neil ☎ 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wahroonga Public School

You recently closed an AfD and deleted this topic on the basis that most keep arguments were based on schools being inherently notable and that other schools exists. The majority of the delete arguments were made prior to a substantial change to the article with seven references being added. The only response to these references was one user who claimed that the material in the references were trivial, rather than the topic being mentioned trivially. On this basis, could you please considering reviewing the basis of your decision to delete. Assize 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For the reader - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahroonga Public School. I read the AFD discussion while closing, and noted that. I still think deletion was the correct result made when closing the discussion. You are entitled to request a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Neil ☎ 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks. Will do. Assize 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wahroonga Public School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize 12:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Not aimed at you, Assize, this is a comment in general). Few admins are willing to close many long or contentious AFDs, because you get lots of DRVs (see the spate above). An occupational hazard, I guess. I should get paid. Grumble grumble. Neil ☎ 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you settle for a hearty "Thanks"? =) Powers ^T 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted pages

Hi, Neil. Could you userfy Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) and Regis (Forgotten Realms) for me please? I've already requested undeletion of Companions of the Hall. I also note that the deletion of Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) left several redirect pages with no targets, meaning there are bluelinks where there should be redlinks in other articles -- is it standard practice to clean those up when a page is deleted? Powers ^T 13:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, done, done, fixed. See your talk page. Neil ☎ 13:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as I have your attention, do you have any suggestions about what do with Alustriel Silverhand? It was deleted as a result of the AfD, as was Dove Falconhand, but Qilué Veladorn was merged to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms) and I see no reason the others could not be as well, bar the AfD results. Would a DRV be appropriate, or should I circumvent the AfDs and merge them myself? Powers ^T 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, how do we get the history now found here (for Regis, for example), integrated with the history of Companions of the Hall? Powers ^T 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin

I thought you might want to see this. [28], [29]. Should the talk page be protected and the blcok enforced on the talk page as well? The repetitive pleading is one thing but the selective deletion of comments is another. This is clearly a user who insists on disruption. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The continued pleading, etc led me to create a summary of some of that editor's activities, which I will expand if need be. I'd rather not waste any more time on this, but I know that I'll waste far more time if they are unblocked again. --AliceJMarkham 05:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent any further ranting. Neil ☎ 10:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --AliceJMarkham 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

giveit.svg

I have made a vectorized version of your image Giveit.jpg. —Random832 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, it's retained its shitty and fuzzy charm. Good work! Neil ☎ 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Wahroonga Public School (closed)

Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has been overturned. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you think 24 hours was enough time for a decent debate? Neil ☎ 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:My userpage

Thanks for the comment; now that I think about it that restriction is not useful - it is supposed to stop vandalism, and that doesn't really work well, so I am going to change it :) Feel free to copyedit my userpage anytime :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you need to work on it a little more :) I can understand you, but it is really funny (no offense meant).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)