User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 3

Archives: User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 1

i went back to "is the goverment out to get us?" page and read what you put about my hotplates and busted out laughing, i needed that. and no.... i havnt had the time yet to start my lil project. Talk Shugoːː 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and yeah it was an axident i didnt notice that it got deleted when i was editing the talk page till after i saved it, my bad. --Talk Shugoːː 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fascinating catch you've made there, with that Wiki-plagiarism in Living with Terror. This reminds me of an experience I had about a year ago, when I began to see much of my own Wiki-writing appear in countless news articles and websites, lifted from my edits at Chinua Achebe. It was perhaps a bit vain of me to notice, but lord I do have my weaknesses: compare [1] and this much older version of his Wiki page.

Many other sentences and phrases were lifted as well. Every news piece I looked at, I found stuff that I had written in the Wiki article. Even the Hindustan Times noted the "ill-fated" Biafran's view of "the intricacies of pre-colonial African culture and civilization".[2] This all occurred in the context of the awarding of Chinua Achebe with the Man Booker International Prize for 2007; Man Booker also reproduced some of my Wiki-work, in explaining their choice. I guess that's probably not all that uncommon, but I consider it a career highlight. :o) DBaba (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You and I don't know each other very well; you might remember me as a hot-headed wikipedian who infrequently discusses on the Main Page discussion page. I know that you and I have not seen eye to eye before, but I need your help in resolving a small dispute. The article Persian Mesopotamia has, after much debating, overwhelming amount of references presented by User:Chaldean and the introduction of a Third Opinion been decided to be re-named to Achaemenid Assyria. However, such a move needs an admin or a mod, and thats where my request for your aid comes.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was totally unaware that rollback rights could be granted upon request. I am so busy creating articles and writing for other publications. After I became aware of the Rollback situation I went and granted the rollback option to the user who requested it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this useful comment [3] on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I wonder if you would be willing to comment further on talkpage of the article concerned Robert Latimer where editors are still struggling with idea that secondary sources are to be preferred. --Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, though unfortunately as usual there is no useful response or interaction about what has been said. If you felt like keeping an eye, I would be very grateful, but totally understand if you don't!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that one I was confused: I thought that your "at least two years" was some kind of allusion to my "forever" comment. That's what it seemed like to me, sense it didn't make sense to me in any other way. If that's not how you intended it, then I guess I don't get your comment, and I apologize. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my error report, at least I now know for the future! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 11:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing it out again because of that fact that the conversation was continuing irrelevant of ffm's notice. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are unfounded! I have caused no vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duben17 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne has the entertainment value of a brick. Why would I care about her? I think it's about time you issued me an apology, assuming you can muster it. Next time you deserve a trout in the face for questioning someone's intentions, I'll expect you'll take it with dignity instead of making personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duben17 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duben17 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks for uploading Image:Durian-pronounciation.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me. It just looked like another instance of the refdesk trolling we've seen a lot of lately, as I said. What was inappropriate about it? I thought usernames using non-Latin characters were permitted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I figured ... not the Korean but the words. I think we've blocked people for too-cute self-conscious self-referential usernames here in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Nil Einne. I noticed you removed a question from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Just curious as I replied to it, is that the standard procedure when dealing with trolls? D0762 (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew there was a problem but I had no idea it had been going on for so long. D0762 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the possible explanations . Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think it looks cool. can you tell someone who works it out to test it then to discuss with others and put it on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I write because of your prior response to the BLPN post I submitted regarding Dicklyon's violations of BLP and 3RR at Archives of Sexual Behavior. He is now accusing me of violating COI in part because of that, so it seemed appropriate to notify you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is to YOUR preceived, asked and anwsered. "Our"? Yes, just a few editors that have accounts. This is so biased, so totally biased to favor your own intrests, and your other editor villains.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nil Einne, thank you for your message. Firstly, until five minutes ago I was unaware that the above-mentioned two individuals had a Wikipedia entry (otherwise I would have referred to the entry, rather than to a video on YouTube). As for reliable source or sources for what I had indicted earlier (here [4]), my knowledge on the case at hand comes directly and entirely from an article published in der Spiegel, as I mentioned previously. I have not been able to trace this article back. Someone interested in the issue should consider to contact der Spiegel and ask them about what they have published on this and/or similar cases over the course of years.

Now something important. On briefly looking through the present Wikipedia entry on Mr Asgari and Mr Marhoni, I feel that I am somewhat confused. This entry states that these two men were executed on 19 July 2005, yet the article that I have read in der Spiegel was certainly published before this date; my memory is that I must have read this particular article sometimes around 2002. I have checked all the links in the External Links section of the above-mentioned Wikipedia entry, and these links seem to be invariably originating from the same source, namely MEK. I am inclined to think that MEK may be acting disingenuously here (MEK is not known for acting honourably); unless there have been two similar cases (of two young men being hanged in Iran on account of identical charges), there is something wrong with 19 July 2005. In around 2002 I was living in one country, and in 2005 in another country, so that the chance of my memory failing (or mixing up events) is extremely small: I cannot recall to have read about the execution of two young men in Iran on charges of rape of a minor (or of homosexuality for that matter) in a der Spiegel of July 2005; in fact, I have a very clear memory of the place and even of the time of the day when I read that specific der Spiegel article.

You suggest that I help out with the LGBT rights in Iran. Well, I have not been to Iran for three decades, so that I have absolutely no first-hand experience of the more recent events taking place in Iran; what I know is through the public media here in the West.

The equivalent of lawāt is sodomy; lawāt appears to refer to Lot who was an inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorra (note that, depending on the religious school of thought, a particular sexual activity between a married heterosexual couple can constitute lawāt — to my best knowledge, this is not a peculiarity of Islamic Law, as for instance according to English Law, sodomy is illegal between married heterosexual couples; the law on this issue may have changed since I last checked it; in earlier times, in America oral sex constituted one of the acts of sodomy; this very fact is interestingly preserved in the definition of sodomy in the old American-English dictionaries - the contemporary English-English dictionaries do not include oral sex as an act of sodomy). I do not know the specific details of the Iranian law on sodomy and how acts of sodomy can be proved in courts of law, should someone be charge with this act, if it has involved two legally consenting adults. I suppose therefore that the majority, if not all, sodomy charges arise when someone has been raped, or at least one of the individuals concerned has been an adult and the other a child or a teenager (in which case the intercourse falls under rape, since legally the latter person could not have consented to the sexual act). In particular in the latter case, it is most likely that the parents of the minor lodge a complaint against the adult person. In such case, you have at least one person who can in principle accuse the other person and testify against in the court. In the case of two consenting adults, I do not know how the case can be brought to the court in the first place, and how a conviction can be secured in the second. I am not familiar with the details, but I believe that in Islam charges pertaining to sexual intercourse between two (or more) individuals can be considered as viable if the act(s) has (have) been witnessed by four reliable witnesses (the technical term for a reliable witness is Just Witness — thus, someone with an earlier criminal conviction does not qualify for appearing in court as a Just Witness). In fact, just seeing two people in each other's arms is not sufficient for deducing that these two had been involved in a sexual activity; there are some very complicated conditions that have to be met, before the two individuals can be considered as having been engaged in a sexual activity. All these make me believe that unless someone has been raped (in which case he or she can testify against the perpetrator in court) or one of the individuals involved has been a minor, it is virtually impossible to bring a case of sexual activity between two consenting adults (whether homosexual or heterosexual) to court, let stand secure a conviction (this is what in fact the former President of Iran, Mr Mohammad Khatami states in this video: [5]). Of course, what I have described above concerns the "ideal" situation; in reality, some judges presiding over courts are just plainly incompetent for the task, not to mention that in reality also some defence lawyers can be equally incompetent (recently I read a case of a woman hanged in Iran for having killed her husband, and it was a clear case of the defence lawyer being utterly incompetent; under no circumstance would the woman be conceivably convicted for murder; the case was clearly a manslaughter under any legal system and this led me to write a very angry letter to one of the women's groups in Iran for having failed this hapless woman; thus far they have not responded to my letter).

With kind regards, --BF 04:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Iraq at the 2008 Summer Olympics, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for the additional cleanup. Cheers, Spencer^T♦C 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just found your response to my 'fonts' question on the reference desk. You seem to have guessed all the things that could be wrong - and therein lies my confusion - I have a LCD monitor, in the normal position, at 768x1024 resolution, and windows is set to the same parameters. When I turn 'cleartype' on I can verify the effect as described in the article (by looking very closely at the screen) - it definately does what it is supposed to do.

However the overall effect is inferior to that with it turned off - I'm guessing that perhaps the display has slight gaps between the pixels that spoil the effect, or maybe the 'VGA' analogue cable that connects is slightly imperfect and degrades the performance.

I think I described it as 'crap' which was an overstatement by a long way, but it definately is worse and no better.. It may just be my personal taste. Perhaps my monitor has some sort of per-pixel colour bleed as with clear-type on I can see colour banding at the edge of the pixels - which theoretically (in the perfect case) wouldn't be visible. Anyway the text is more than clear enough to read in any case, so I am fine. (I've given up on the safari browser for now, despite it having some nice features.)

Thanks for responding.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologized for my intemperate remarks against C.K. Raju, but what is the point of saying, "if he doesn't stop?" Where is the evidence that I have continued this behavior. I had never heard of Raju until this dispute began, and as far as I'm aware I've said nothing beyond what is quoted in the RfC (and in that window of time). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful and detailed reply. Yes, I do agree with you. My behavior is not something I am proud of and I will make a change in my response and add that I am not condoning my behavior and do not intend to repeat it. I do tend to go off the handle more easily than some other people on Wikipedia that I have worked with, for example, user:Nichalp. I am very envious that they can keep the equanimity even while battling the worst trolls. I asked user:Sunray, who is also manages to keep his cool, what his secret was, and he suggested that volunteering at MedCab might have helped him. I am seriously considering doing that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that the "no recording" request is an issue of controversy that needs to be cited? I can't find anybody disputing this except you. TMLutas (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you directed me to the discussion on S.E.K. as the matter was settled like a month or more ago. What, exactly, am I supposed to understand about Wikipedia policy? ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case, you are saying that the issue of privacy and comfort raised under BLP is (as I argued) the requisite issue when dealing with her request to keep her (male) birth name private? If so, I'm glad. She is notable for creating a language (one that has gotten quite a bit of coverage, actually!), not for being trans, and much of the information presented was incorrect. I couldn't specify how without breaking privacy, but it was wrong, and her birth name and state of her genitals is neither notable nor a public matter. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 06:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..to defile my page ;) Just kidding.. don't worry you can post criticism on it if it's constructive and well-meant. I don't mind that. The other guy was a bit specific case and that's why I told him not to defile my talk page :) Cheers. JosipMac (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil Einne. I have a question about your Tony Blair comments. I just see you're taking a break from all the "dumb stuff" on Wikipedia. This may be more of that dumb stuff you want a break from :) As you know, some have deleted Mahathir's criticism of Blair's foray into Iraq, which Maharthir says constitutes a war crime. Mahathir is not the only one with that opinion (I suspect a percentage of the British population think that also), but he is one of the most prominent and outspoken about it. You made some comments on the Blair talk page, suggesting reasons that both inclusion and exclusion could be justified, but not explicitly stating it should stay or go. Problem is, others (well, one other) is using your comment as a claim of consensus that the information should be deleted. Is it possible for you to clarify your comment on the Blair talk page? My own opinion is that WP:UNDUE would be balanced by including comments of those who were in favour of Iraq (possibly they praise the invasion, saying it is necessary for world peace, or energy security, or whatever they thought was good about the invasion), balanced with criticism, such as Mahathir who thought Blair committed war crimes. Mahathir made the war crime comment numerous times, both while PM and after, which was widely reported at the time. Thanks for your consideration. Sorry to disturb your Wiki-restbreak. Regards, --Lester 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--I responded to your comment on my talk page, in case you're interested: User talk:Narsil#Moving pages. In a nutshell: Yes, I honestly thought the move would be uncontroversial, but yes, I can see that I was mistaken about that--my apologies. In the future, I'll run similar moves by WP:RM, even if I think they're utterly innocuous. -- Narsil (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the fact that this was added to the articles of two DIFFERENT prominent South African politicians (three minutes apart) by the same user, that it is entirely untrue to the point of being "interesting/bizarre" (13 children), that no other sources point to this fact, and that in many years of reading the BBC daily I have never seen an article (having nothing to do with Wikipedia) EXPLICITLY cite Wikipedia. The line being "And according to his Wikipedia entry, he is the youngest of 13 children." I'm sorry, that sounds fishy to me. But even if it isn't, "lazy journalism" like this is fraudulent, and something I do not expect from the BBC. Just my opinion. T L Miles (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my opinion. I respect that yours might differ. Have a good day! T L Miles (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edit, not only did you remove info comparing this to another film, but it appears you also removed all of the citations in that subsection which had info on the box office results of the film itself. Please do not remove that whole swathe of material, but rather at the very least retain the sources themselves, so that you do not then leave the entire subsection unsourced. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weekly box office figures speak for themselves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, didn't know. Guess I didn't read that page properly :) Khawaga (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that the example I posted contains two featured pictures and one multipart featured sound: that particular combination wouldn't run at one time on the main page under any conditions. It happens to be the flagship example of a subproject called "A recording, a score, and a portrait" for Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration, a project I founded. The goal of the subproject is to assemble quality free licensed recordings, sheet music, and portraits for as many composers and songwriters as possible. The long term goal of that subproject is a bit different from the drive to get featured sounds a little time on Wikipedia's main page.

I noticed that the featured article I wrote about Joan of Arc had been translated into 3 languages in 2.5 years. But the first picture I got featured at Wikimedia Commons had its caption translated into 2 dozen languages in a matter of months. It's easier to translate captions than whole articles, so why not build on that synergy where it matters most: with music? So far we have artists from three continents at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration/A recording, a score, and a portrait: even if a language edition of Wikipedia has just a one or two paragraph stub, a good media package conveys a lot of information about these people. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I've responded to your inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Dismas|^(talk) 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you don't care either way, I think I'll just keep a watchful eye. Certainly a block could be justified, but it may be better just to monitor any future behavior. - Nunh-huh 13:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have to post here and ask why you would insinuate that I said it was acceptable for men to beat their wives, and youths to beat and maim each other? At no point did I even hint that these things were acceptable. I think it is out of order that you would suggest that is my opinion. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read it you will see I was pointing out my belief, whether you agree with it or not, that youths today are more violent towards elderly people than they were years ago. Why is that irrelevent to the discussion? Titch Tucker (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You amaze me! You have actually turned it around to imply that I put words into your mouth! I shall delete your reply to me on my talk page. You have obviously got too high an opinion of yourself, therefore there is no point in continuing this. You are welcome to do the same here. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a lot of misunderstanding between us. Arguing who put words into who's mouth is pretty futile and would only lead to another disagreement, so I think we should leave it there with no hard feelings and move on. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to email you, but you have not enabled your email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my email? I mailed it as soon as you fixed the issue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated WPT:LIBEL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding the 1996 family airlines thing there are second sources that discuss the 1996 incident. What should I do next? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Here is what I have so far: User:WhisperToMe/Family Airlines - Please give some input WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We need more votes again for our January 2009 collaboration. As of December 7, only 4 members have voted. Please do exercise your right to vote! Thanks! :-) White2020 (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw you voting on Jayvdb with the rationale that "if he had recognised this as a problem and said he would abstain on such issues it wouldn't be such an issue but he didn't". Just FYI, he in fact did: [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've decided to abstain instead Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment over at meta:Global sysops/Vote#Comments, I looked at my vote page, and found that you opposed again after you abstained. Comparing the two votes leaves me scratching my head a little. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hassle you but I'm very puzzled by your comments about privacy. I haven't commented directly on this and I certainly don't believe in full disclosure.

I'm emphatic that confidential and sensitive issues (outing, medical stuff etc) must be kept confidential by ArbCom. There is, for example, no point in disclosing all the evidence about an outing case, including unoversighted diffs, as that would have the effect of outing an editor.

However, there is considerable community unease about using secret evidence to sanction editors. In this instance, the answer is to see whether non-sensitive evidence exists that would prove the same point. In an outing example, you can establish that an editor has been outing without going into the detail of the information disclosed.

Overall, I believe that ArbCom should operate a great more transparently, which will probably mean explaining why things have been done the way they have. It does not mean full disclosure of everything to everyone. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering why and how I voted, it's a rather complicated pattern with various issues and I expect some degree of randomness. Because I voted very late (not on purpose, I don't usually check my WL so had no idea of a vote until I happened to be reading Jimbo's page) I already had a very good idea of was likely to win, who could win and who was almost definitely not going to win.

Firstly, I voted in two or three phases, one where I looked through the candidates briefly and made a quickish decision, one where I looked in more detail particularly at certain candidates (mostly those who were borderline between winning and losing) and perhaps a final one where I checked some stuff to make sure I was right (although I did this most of the time). I will freely admit I didn't read all answers by candidates to questions (did anyone?), although I did read the statements (which IMHO are quite important). And I did as it turns out spend quite a numberof hours on deciding how to vote.

At first, my voting was a bit adhoc. If I came across something I liked or didn't like, I voted accordingly. If I was came across someone who I was unsure both ways, I put it in the too hard basket and left it. Mostly, this affected those who had no chance of winning, when I gave moral support if you like to those who for whatever reason I felt needed it and opposed those tho I felt I couldn't support. I looked at a variety of issues particularly in the later stages BLP and also whether or not the candidate seemed serious and comprehended the enormous task that is arbcom. And there were probably some candidates who I ended up treating more harshly then others for the same issue. Or to put it simply, did this candidate click for me? One thing which wasn't random is I did decide to support the two incumbents because I don't fully agree with the mood fo change. But all in all for most of the candidates on the lower end of the vote tally, perhaps don't take my vote too seriously either way, it was likely a bit random and ad-hoc. This applies to a far lesser degree to the top 3 candidates who while I did spend some time looking into them, probably not as much as the next 4-10 or so and felt less urgency (since based on tallies, the chance it would make any difference whether they are in the group that serves 3 years or 1 year, let alone whether they get through is close to zero and if it does happen would need to be analysed carefully). (Some would say I should have abstained on most of these candidates but I disagree.)

One thing which I disagreed with is the view of Sandy George who generally felt contributors definitely need to have extensive work in quality articles. While I do think we should have some members of that ilk, I think there's nothing wrong with contributors who have primarily worked in other areas. Another thing which I disagreed with was the unacceptability of anyone who contributes a lot to WR. As I mentioned in one of my votes, I find WR a generally stupid site, but I'm not going to penalise people for stuff on WR unless I feel the user's behaviour there reflects poorly on how they would act as an arbcom.

Besides BLP, one issue that ended up being often a decider for me (and since most of those at the top had decent views on BLP it was a big decider) was what they said about the OM case as well as confidentiality and private evidence. While I haven't ever looked extremely extensively at the OM case, indeed that and the big bruhaha RFC about arbcom largely passed me over, from what I have seen and read, I'm not convinced things were as bad many people feel. Mistakes were made and I've decided not to go into them since it is unnecessary and it may offend some. It did cause a lot of controversy, which as a bad thing but I don't believe it's entirely the arbcom's fault or a terrible stain on them.

And as for my views on discretion by the arbcom. I know quite a few don't agree with me but I believe given the nature of the arbcom, sometimes they do have to or it would be better to carry out proceedings in private. And yes, sometimes they will have to withold some evidence from the eyes even of those before them. This may not seem fair to some and is, I would agree, unacceptable in a court of law (for example, I find the plans for the Guantanamo trials digusting). I had started to elaborate further but I wrote was already very long and not even half-finished so I decided to stop and exclude it.

I will give one completely random made up example. Let's say a highly trusted editor meets or knows someone and for whatever reason they end up discussing wikipedia and they learn something about a user that they feel the arbcom needs to know about (e.g. of sockpuppetry). However they have no wish for their information to be revealed even to the person they met. Perhaps because they don't want people to they edit wikipedia (perhaps it's even illegal for them), perhaps they are afraid they will be harassed by the person who they met, perhaps it's their friend or relative, perhaps they work for the person who told them the information, whatever. In this case it's obvious you can't tell the accused party at all about this. Indeed you even have to be careful about approaching the user since if you tell the user 2 days after they discussed the matter with the other party there's a good chance they're going to put two and two together. So what do you do? Obviously you should look for other evidence to support the claims, as you should do in all cases although there is obviously greater urgency since the other party can't challenge this information, they can't for example offer evidence there is no way they could have met the other person because they've never been where they allegedly meet. And perhaps you find other evidence e.g. from a CU which while not conclusive supports the theory (it could for example not only reveal that sockpuppetry is possible but perhaps reveal that perhaps support the idea the user comes from a specific location or even uses a specific ISP which concurs with what the trusted user told you). But if the original evidence is particularly compelling and really your case isn't strong enough without it and the user who revealed the evidence highly trusted (perhaps even submits a sworn statement) do you really throw this evidence out because it can't be in anyway revealed to to the accused user? IMHO no, you accept the totality of evidence with due consideration that what can't be revealed has to be used with care since it can't be challenged, decide the case and reveal what you can. I'm not saying this is a excellent example. It was completely made up but I'm sure there are many other cases which I'm not aware of and examples I can't think of where you will have to use evidence that you can't reveal to the other party. I respect the view of those who don't agree with this, but I clearly have different views.

Based on all this, I analysed resonably carefully the views expressed by the various candidates on these matters (OM, private trials, confidential information, unrevealed evidence etc) and look for those most similar to mine particularly among the candidates ranking 4-10 who it looked like my vote could mean something. At a later stage (actually I noticed it earlier but never looked in to it) I came across User talk:Cynical/Archive 8 who queried the aspect of whether the candidate was point blank opposed to any evidence used which is not revealed to the other party and in case it's not yet obvious, is something I don't agree. And yes, I did reject those people who received support from cynical (except for carcharoth who while supported by cynical never seemed to express clear views to me on the matter nor did cynical say he did) after re-analysing what they said whether to her or in the questions if necessary (although that largely agreed with my own analysis except for coolhandluke). Most of the others were less clear cut and I recognise some of them may have even more extreme views just unwilling or unable to express them but that's the nature of things.

In summary I will say the arbcom needs to be seen to be fair. It needs to be trusted. And it also needs to work effectively in making wikipedia a better place. Above all it needs to be fair. Sometimes these goals coincide, sometimes they do not and I've voted on those I feel will best achieve that balance.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While you correctly understand my position, I think my reasoning might interest you.

User:Lar has sometimes remarked that "Wikipedia doesn't do due process." I agree. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and removing access from it is in no way analogous to removing a protected right. We don't need to be absolutely certain that someone's behavior is destructive—ArbCom does not conduct criminal trials, it just supports the interests of the encyclopedia (see, for example, my answer to UninvitedCompany #16).

So I don't oppose using secret evidence because it violates some sort of human right.

I oppose the practice for one simple reason: People lie.

One of the best ways to evaluate possibly-truthful claims is through cross-examination and scrutiny. When claims cannot be presented to the affected party, the best arguments against them are potentially being ignored. By conveying the allegations to the affected user, they have the opportunity to refute them. If they cannot, than we can be quite confident that the witness is correct. If, on the other hand, the witness refuses to let the evidence be forwarded, it can never go through rigorous validation. Moreover, I'm concerned about the moral hazard of allowing individual users to anonymously tar another. Again, people lie.

That doesn't mean that the committee shouldn't look for confirming evidence. Private allegations can be a hot tip, and I assure you that I will be tenacious about investigating all public and private allegations. It was an off-site tip that triggered the Mantanmoreland case, and I put a lot of work into substantially confirming the claims by using legitimate on-wiki evidence that User:Mantanmoreland was confronted with (and answered unconvincingly).

The bottom line is that I don't oppose secret evidence because editing is some sort of natural right. But rather I oppose secret evidence because it's bad at sorting out the truth, and confidence in the committee (and work on the encyclopedia) suffers when we don't get it right. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful that I will get any more responses at the Commons Village pump. Can you give me anymore information on how I might convert a Flash video to something else using VLC, or how I might even download it? The problem is that I can't seem to get at the source file. If I could get it onto my computer as a file I'm sure I could convert it into ogg directly or indirectly.

The video is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sam2cents/2577843608/

Actually, there are a lot of good videos for this species, see e.g. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Song+Thrush&ss=0&ct=0&mt=videos&w=all

Clearly it's much more difficult to upload a video than a photo. I hope they can improve this by initially at least providing some documentation (I can do this part myself actually, though I want to know the best way(s) to do it first. Richard001 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear N.E., it seems we're both responding to another's* contribution on the Humanities Ref Desk, and I just want you to know: I generally deplore what I consider that user's ill-judged and sometimes downright offensive remarks on many topics, but certainly this recent one. I've tried to stay out of the current discussions, not the least because this morning my area's on alert for rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon and I've been busy counseling two visiting European Wikipedians (one of whom, here for a year, lives on the street where a residence for the elderly took a katyusha hit) as to how to get through the day. I look forward to more productive discussions on these and similar topics, and wish us a speedy and lasting ceasefire and aid to all those directly affected. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've seen fit to add this. Do you think the matter would further benefit from a posting on the Ref Desk Talk page? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Rdsmith4 Usurped me from User:SRX to my present name of User:Truco, my edits were not connected (tied together), and so they are separate. May you fix that? He said he would do it but he hasn't been active lately.--Truco 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can still make a e-mail adress for my old account if I can't log in?

Please double check that!!!I am in Goteborg at present completing a course and simply do not have any idea of what you are implying.If asking question is a crime,then Wikipedia shoudl make that explicit.RNaidu —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNaidu (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your note.I find the whole thinmg ridiculous.I have never been blocked in the few weeks I have been with the Wiki!And as far as abusing Wiki is concerned,I do not recall ever using an untoward word in the 30 or so edits to my name!Are you suggesting that all the 30 edits were untoward and copied from someone!(RNaidu (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've been asking the developers about once per day to look into this, and I've heard no response yet. I'll keep it up until I get a reaction from somebody, which isn't an easy task. In any case, I haven't forgotten about it. — Dan | talk 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the official name of the Wikipedia article for Burma/Myanmar is Burma and not Myanmar, we should be consistent and your criticism about me making unilateral changes without due discussion is difficult to understand.

I made a minor change and duly explained my rationals for doing so on the talk page in question. I cannot possibly take in mind the view of all the individuals on other talk pages. I have however modified your change to Burma/Myanmar.

Your examples of "colour" and "petrol" are also completely irrelevant for the case as these deal with different spellings in American and British English. The question of Burma/Myanmar is not a grammatical question, it is a political as you certainly know. Sponsianus (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last message I am sorry I posted on your user page instead of on the talk page, but then again, there isn't much to say.

Don't you have anything more important to remark than the petty correction that there is a difference between "grammar" and "spelling"? You know very well what I meant, but by all means, I stand corrected. So here's is what I have to say about your comparisons, now in an updated version:

Your examples of "colour" and "petrol" are also completely irrelevant for the case as these deal with different spellings in American and British English. The question of Burma/Myanmar is not a spelling/terminology question, it is a political as you certainly know.

You are frequently referring to a number of Wikipedia policies, apparently thinking that doing so could substitute real arguments. You wrote:

And yes, WP:ENGVAR does come into this discussion since the term Myanmar is much more common in some varieties of English and Burma may be more common in others.

Is this supposed to mean anything? The Wikipedia page on Burma, under "Names of the country" clearly states that various TV channels and newspapers have different policies, but also that the governments of the major English-speaking countries all prefer "Burma" to "Myanmar". These are not "varieties of English" as regulated by ENGVAR (which mainly regulates matters of different usage in British and American English), these are examples of organisations chosing different political policies.

Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sathya_Sai_Baba

I have written there: "user Nil Einne may have wrong impression due to 'biased history' and 'fake pro-Baba activity'"

Another user (RadiantEnergy) have made very good appointments there.

I invite you to follow the "news" there, and please give some advice of what can be done to save the article... and also the own Wikipedia, because as it is, the article is like a "dirty stain" on it, decreasing its credibility.

Are you aware of how bad the article currently is?

Be aware: 1) You can find no history in the history anymore. 2) Opposite POV is being fakely played by an user with the same POV!

Again: what is happening there is very serious. I am no Wikipedia "heavy user" or "expert" - I don't know where / how / who to warn about this very serious problem going on there.

You may ignore it, and I just wasted my time, or you can please forward this very serious allegations from me to someone else - I don't know your degree of expertise and influence here... but I am doing my part, warning.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.154.139 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are you really serious? what if I just posted a stanza? please reply on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the above question completely as a request for medical advice. Please see my full reasoning here. I just wanted to let you know as one of the responders to the question. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on an IRC channel in years, so I don't really like the implication of your asking about it. Nor the comparison to "negro" and "nigger". Would you mind removing that part?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response moved from user talk:Peter Isotalo.

I have clarified the comment about IRC. I will not however be withdrawing my comment about the terms negro or 'nigger'. It was a fair comment. You are apparently unwilling to accept that the term homosexual is offensive in the context, whereas gay is relatively neutral. It is your right to feel however you feel about the terminilogy, but that is as irrelevant as the people who try to argue that negro or 'nigger' are equivalent to black or African-American. We stick with what the sources say and use, and the sources say and use that homosexual is likely to be considered offensive and that gay is preferred. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my opinion once and didn't even argue the point. I don't see how that merits nasty comparisons between "homosexual" and "nigger". It's more of a provocation than an argument.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you now accept that homosexual is usually offensive that's good. If not, then your comment seems largely irrelevant. The simple fact is both you and others have expressed a reluctance to accept that homosexual is often an offensive term despite being told it is, and it being very easy to find out it is from a large variety of sources (e.g. as I found in 1 minute when giving them to User talk:Mqduck) and means. The reason for this I don't understand (I've never understood why people insist on telling others what they should and shouldn't find offensive, for example I personally prefer the term Pākehā to refer to that part of my ethnicity, as do a number of Pākehā but while I will clear up misconceptions about the origin of the word, which are quite common, I will not try to dictate to people that they shouldn't find it offensive, some people do find it offensive and I accept that), and it's not really my concern. My point was and is, that certain terms are considered offensive by a large number of people. The fact that some people refuse to accept that is irrelevant in us deciding what term to use. This is the same whether the term is homosexual or 'nigger' or negro. For some LGB people, the term homosexual when used as an adjective is just as offensive as the term nigger or Jew so it is highly relevant to a discussion when people refuse to accept the term is offensive. It is my hope that people when people think about it, if they accept nigger or Jew or negro or whatever is offensive because people find it offensive, even if certain people don't find it offensive, they will realise that if people find the term homosexual offensive then it is offensive and should be avoided, regardless of whatever a few other people may think of the term. If this doesn't help you, then so be it. I didn't really make this clear enough in my response and I apologise for that, but my response was not solely directed at you, but rather at all people who refused to accept the term was offensive. I tried to give a completely answer so I could avoid the situation where I had to come back with further explainations because people refused to accept my answer, because they did not find the term offensive (as happened on IRC for example) and happens in other discussions. Personally I prefer to avoid back and forth too much, so I usually give relatively complete answers first up. This requires some degree of guessing as to what other issues may come up, and sometimes it's possible I am wrong, but as has been shown in the discussion in various places there are people who are unable to accept that homosexual is offensive so I don't think I was in general, even if I was wrong about you. It is my hope that my explaination helped give people pause for thought, and reduced the number of people who refused to accept the term homosexual is offensive, but I will of course never know if that was the case and in the end it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To support my contention above [7] Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to write me personally on the subject. I'm someone who (often) chooses his words carefully so I'm thankful that you shared that information and those links to me.

I think you may have misread my comment a bit, though. I responded there, so please read that, but here's the most important part: "You may not have noticed that one of the reasons I 'voted' for 'gay' over 'homosexual' was specifically that 'homosexual' is offensive to some - even though I didn't understand why." So I don't think we have any disagreements on the Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir article.

Anyway, while I was clearly ignorant about the word's connotation, I think the matter might be more nuanced than you realize. I wrote a friend of mine, a radical gay activist since the 60s, asking about the word. Here's what he said:

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

I wouldn't give much credibility to what people say is offensive. Mostly, it's their personal choice. Certainly, whoever told you "homosexuality" is offensive outside a clinical context is quite mixed up.

[...]

I thought the use of "gay" was on John Lauritsen's Web site, but a quick glance didn't turn it up, though it could be there in his GLF section [I found it here]. You might check out his Web site if you haven't. Just google his name and his homepage will pop up.

In brief, "gay" was chosen by the immediate post-Stonewallers precisely because it was an inclusive term, unlike "sodomite," say, or "lesbian." It also carried that obvious subtext meaning, even though the word itself originated in the prostitution subculture. But "homosexual" was used widely, and still is, in the post-Stonewall period. You might check out the first issue of /Come Out!/, of which a facsimile is provided on Lauritsen's Web site.

[...]

Some activists have always objected to "homosexual" as too clinical sounding. Others, myself included, have always liked it precisely because it is so "in your face." There's nothing closety about using that word. Some people objected (wrongly, in my view) to it because they felt it put the focus on sex. But what the hell is wrong with sex? This latter argument came in stronger the farther away from radical challenging of heterodominant society the gay/lez movement got.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

It's an interesting issue. --MQDuck 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not misunderstand my commentary "In Icelandic, 'homosexual' may be an offensive word" and "[the] problem here, from what I gather, is that in other languages, their translation of 'homosexual' has a negative connotation, something unfamiliar to English speakers (at least in the US)." What you misunderstood was which side I was ultimately taking on the issue of what language the article should use. --MQDuck 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nil Einne: I am removing this from the Ref Desk as I don't want to appear to add to a soap-box debate I shouldn't have joined in the first place. While I don't hold you responsible for the content of the clarification, and I do thank you for your desire to make this matter clear, it remains double talk or bafflegab, if you like, to most of us. Any person held in continuing custody by an enemy power, whether lawful combatant, protected person, civilian or unlawful combatant is entitled to be treated humanely. There may be agreed and accepted differences in their several rights to trial, comunication and other "privileges", but not even Bush, with all his twisting and turning, eliminated the right to humane treatment for every category of prisoner. "Humane treatment" means not subject to "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". Waterboarding is a form of coercion. It is unacceptable behaviour, especially from a country that makes much of its humanity. Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me. This is in no way personal. It became a rant at about the third word and I lack the discipline this morning just to erase it. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced now I should just have gone with my first instinct and deleted my text. It is a rant, true, but not, not, at you. Quite the contrary. I assumed, from the way in which you had worded your clarification, that we were likely to be in agreement on the principles and that your page would thus be a safe place to park my rant. You would know what touched it off, but, sharing most of the views, would not feel under attack. That I might have misinterpreted your being in agreement, I thought I covered by "Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me". The Ref Desk section, on the other hand, would not have been safe as I would there have been adding more fuel to the fire. As for "a country that makes much of its humanity", my irony meter was obviously set way too low. In short, I humbly and deeply apologise for any distress I have caused you, however inadvertently. I always advised editors I supervised that if someone can read what you have written and conclude it means something other than you meant it to mean, the fault is in the the writing and not the reading. I wrote poorly and you have been upset as a consequence. Please feel free to remove it all, though there may be a lesson in here useful to others in how not to start a rant. I have inserted the whole onto my page for that reason. The good part is that your Sunday can only improve from here. I am so very sorry. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer was intended to simplify for the OP (seemingly not a native English speaker nor conversant with electrics) the rather complicated and discursive responses he received from the several helpful and knowledgeable responders. Best wishes. Richard Avery (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same "Nil Einne" who posted to the RepRap project's "Objects.RepRap.Org - Any volunteers?" thread?

Presuming that you are (...and persuming that I'm the same User:SteveBaker who spent time hanging out there before it all fizzled...which I am!) - what do you think ought to happen with that site?

IMHO, the world needs a decent repository of free 3D models - not just for RepRap - but for OpenSourced games, for animations in Wikipedia, for free movies...all sorts of things. We have 2D raster images and SVG images in Commons - but what about 3D models, mocap data, texture maps?

I'm kinda thinking that this would be a good thing to hand over to WikiCommons (and thereby cause the final demise of Objects.RepRap.org). Nobody is contributing to the RepRap repository - and I think that if it ever DID take off, they would rapidly sink into an unsustainable mire of vandalism and copyvio's with not enough people to fix it. But I suspect that many WikiCommons folk might regard this as beyond their remit.

I would greatly value an opportunity to chat with another experienced Wikipedian over this - the folks on RepRap.org are sadly unqualified in this regard - but that is a project on which I deeply want to make a contribution, and my background in both Wiki's and 3D graphics make this the obvious place to attack it.

There is another (tangentially related) project that I just got ensnared in with a similar problem. A guy I know at work is heading up a team to build an OpenSourced ink-jet technology machine that can print electronic circuits onto flexible plastic substrates. The mechanism they need to drive the printhead would look a lot like a RepRap - and RepRap needs to be able to make it's own circuit boards...so there is synergy. But more than that - this other project also needs a repository for open circuit-board designs...this is MUCH further from WikiCommon's remit...but perhaps a common solution would work out that way?

Anyway - if you are interested in talking some more. We can talk here - or on my Talk: page - or on Objects.RepRap.org (please let me know which talk page!) or we could do it via eMail (I'm at mailto:steve@sjbaker.org )...whatever.

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must advise you that I had lodged a complaint against you!I logged in after more than a month to find your scurrilous comments.Beng a senior academic with Madras University,I take that as an affront.I was unblocked.Since you are unlikely to do resort to the logical next step and rescind what you said in your note,I think it is best that my annoyance is recorded on your page.By the way the adminstrator was decent enough to apologise for having acted on your complaint.(Deva 840 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly what you thought was evidence has been proven to be garbage!And it was the original adminstrator who blocked me who apologised after looking at my credentials and re-examining the evidence!No point mentioning it to you as you are unlikely to understand but being a senior academic probably older than you I must say at the risk of appearing patronising(which is far from my intent)that the evidence you mentioned should have been more carefully scrutinised before you made the scurrilous allegation.I am not in a habit of logging regularly,only one every few months to look at information but I hope I shall not be confronted with this demeanour again.(Deva 840 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is about time that you begin to apprecite what the Wiki demnds -civility and fairness which you seem to have forgotten in your inflated sense of self-importance which is reflected in your arrogance that emerges from your entire conduct!I sincerely hope this is a temporary abberation from your usual conduct else I am certain someone more hotheaded than myself is going to report you for unacceptable deviation from teh conduct required of wiki editors as I understand it!I am inclined to dismiss that as a sign of foray into immaturity and as I said hope it is temporary!

My problem since you ask is that you had indulged in making scurrilous allegation as I said in my last communication to you without resorting to acceptable standards of investagation and presenting them to the administrators in a twisted manner!

And how about some truth for a change!I looked at your entire tirade and nowhere did I find your comment that you thought evidence against me was weak as you point out in your comment on my talk page!

And quite frankly even I couln't care less for someone who in his arraogance can even hypothetically suggest that Ban ki Moon or Nobel Laureates may resort to the sort of chicanery which you seem to level without evidence!I do however care about Wikipedia and hope with all sincerity that this needless act of recklessness resulting form your hasty actions and presumptions woudl end here once and for all!(Deva 840 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is about time that a few things need to be spelled out!

Let me start by stating that I am indeed very touched by your concern about my lack of facility in English and your valiant efforts to assist!I am not sure what my colleagues at Balliol College Oxford where I spent 3 years for my doctorate and All Souls College where I was a Fellow for a year would have to say to that-maybe they missed something I lack which your genius has spotted!!!

And as far as my association with Wikipedia goes,I have always used it as a tool to acquire information and learn rather than rush into editing!I have always believed that if the editors were sparing with their edits the forum would be more informative and useful and as a consequence in all my time have been extremely conservative with my edits i.e.unless I am very sure of something I don't rush to edit in the first place!Rather I am quite content to browse and learn!Unlike it appears yourself as you seem to enjoy raising accusatory fingers at others!!!And your good faith as you protest would have been more credible had you displayed the same humility as the editor named Avi did!!!Within two hour of my protest,I had recieved an unequivocal and comprehensive apology!!He did not try to pathetically defend teh indefensible!And I do not think the fact that nobody else has complained is reflective of a faith in your actions-people just don't usually bother to go on an expedition to downgrade others to gain some sort of pleasure!

I am simply not concerned whetehr the other people you reported are still blocked-that does not concern me one tiny iota!All I am concerned about is when I logged in after my return from abroad I noticed your scurillous comments!And as I do not use a pseudonym,perhaps some of my students might have noticed the garbage that was presented as evidence-and wondered what Prof.Devarajan was upto!Maybe in a skewered manner to make it look credible!And the unfortunate consequences!

It is obvious that you are not endowed with sufficient humility to realse what shoudl be done if your actions do turn out to be the result of an innocent error!We all make errors of judgement and all of us have inflicted damage on others without meaning to do so.I have been guilty of a fair number of those misjudgements myself!But I have always understood whre the reaction from teh victim is coming from and pleaded human failings when that happens not egregiosly tried to present an aura of arrogant defiance!

Unless my English is really as you believe it to be,I think I understand teh Wikipedia as well as anybody!And if you do not understand that people like Nobel Laureates and Ban ki Moon have no need to indulge in disreputable conduct like that and make themselves vulnerable to people like yourself who would pounce at the opportunity to level charges and insult in order to satisfy their egos well the you have a problem!From what you said it was clear that you do not expect those people to be above that conduct-and good luck with that conviction!That is my reading of your logic-and correct my English if you feel it needs correction!

I am normally a very patient person but I do not suffer arrogance from others gladly!To me that is the ultimate in bad behaviour!Nor do I bother abour some pipsqueaks making uninformed remarks!

But I shall continue to be a visitor to teh Wikipedia and if need be an occasional contributor!And sincerely hope this experience would teach you a few lessons!(Deva 840 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for commenting on my "Jane" question. Feel free to visit my page sometime! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to speak in english here even if its my english is not that fluent, if im fluent in english, so i'll speak in english here!! sorry about that for being wikipedia a social network. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the start, I dont like to contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia, because no one read it, so my contributions will not be read. Here in English many filipinos and even foreigners read my contributions in the Santa Maria, Bulacan article, around 100 views everyday compare to only 5 or even 2 in the Tagalog. And all my contributions here are all english! I only speak tagalog in my talkpages and WHEN im talking to Ramz Trinidad bcoz he is not fluent in English either. I cannot say what's in my mind if I speak english (and if its too long). Please understand me.. Thank you. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nil Einne's day! For your contributions to the Reference Desks and to the project, enjoy being the Star of the day, Nil Einne! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

No problem. Cheers! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nil Einne, I much admire and appreciate your response to my offering on the RD discussion page, and helping others understand it. It hadn't occurred to me that in their virtual company I might need to compose my remarks more clearly, so that's something for me to work on in the future. It's good that life is a continual learning process; it's even better when you have sincerely helpful companions. Keep up the good work on behalf of all, and have a happy spring and festival of your choice! -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I tried to do a cleanup on your User page where there appear to be two misplaced comments dated 28 Feb 2008. I got as far as posting them to Archive 1 of your User talk page. Removing them from your User page, though, got into formatting syntax too complex for me to perform, so please follow through as you see fit. Hope I've been of some help, anyway! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a comment on my talk page, but it didn't say anything besides saying that I suck. It makes you look stupid if you attack someone but cant even say what you disagree with. If you are going to attack me, attack my edits, attack a string of them, but don't just attack my persona without reason. If that is all you can do: go away.Scientus (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, s/he dassn't get away with it, not on our watch! I appreciate your pickup/treatment/follow-through; couldn't've done better myself. As a RL professional translator/editor from a gender-marked language to one far less so, I do my share of wrangling the awkwardness emerging from this matter so am probably more aware of it than the average WP reader. Renderings must stay true to source, particularly published ones, and the output isn't always satisfactory to all. (Then again, so few things in life truly are...?) While you and I take evidently WP seriously and the responsibility that comes with it, realistically we know how many factors—including our own having and taking the time to make fixes or not—result in the status quo falling short of the optimal. Which makes your intervention all the more valued, and for this you have my esteem, and thanks on behalf of all. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal feelings toward mexicans. In fact, I don't really compete with them at all as I live in hawaii. Here the biggest competition for jobs are the locals and japanese. Anyway. I pointed out that they have never done the right thing in regards to giving mexicans the benefit of the doubt. The usually would label this family as aliens whereas they instead labeled them visitors. I was neither objecting nor promoting use of the term. I was merely scoffing at the idea of the NYT doing the right thing for once. I never said anything about mexicans being stupid, or using the NYT to find jobs. I said they regularly run articles lamenting the bad job market and invariably the article blames alien mexicans for the lack of jobs. get your facts straight before attacking someone. And even then, you probably still shouldn't go on the attack. Your shortsided and ill informed attack shows poor form.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit to 2009 swine flu outbreak deliberate? It has reverted a number of previous edits, and doesn't match the edit summary. --Zigger «º» 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Zigger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, you mentioned to me that you trust professionals more than "wikipedians" (re SARS). Well, my wife is a respiratory therapist at a major hospital in Central New York State. When the topic was breached, her (and that of the hospital) was one of "so?" This strain of flu is very different because SARS already existed. That is why WHO overblew things. It isn't opinion. SARS was already around, the real problem was that there was very little news going on. BFritzen (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your comment at WT:RT made me laugh! Thanks. PS: I don't regret anything; I'll just wait for another day to pass till WHO and CDC change their minds and I'm (momentarily) right again. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely rewritten the Mibbit article so you may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mibbit. The AfD nominator has also since been blocked. [8] Tothwolf (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's because it went here instead. Archiving is neither automatic nor standardized in its time. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. It just felt like the <several>th time that I had attempted to put some facts, or at least good wikilinks, into a heated discussion, only to have them ignored, i.e. not commented on. In a few cases, the info I have offered has been re-offered later by someone else (not you!), thus proving the entire futility of my efforts. The last couple of times this has happened, I have tried to coolly point this out. It is so annoying to be involuntarily invisible. So thanks for accepting that. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I get for writing from memory. I had (mis)remembered that the hoax had been by a friend of the victim; thanks for making the correction. Nice to know that someone's reading my essay. :D Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect way to communicate with you, but I've never used "talk" before. I'm a rising sophomore at Duke University and am writing an article for the paper on Duke's Wikipedia page, and I had noticed you had edited that article. I was just wondering why you edited the page, if you have any affiliation with the University, and any and all comments you may have regarding the page. Feel free to reach me here, via email: haa3@duke.edu , or via AIM: haahaamagician . Thank you very much! Haahaamagician (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I meant to say 'thanks' for nudging me about the ongoing discussion re. Watts the 'meteorologist'. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoApe (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the reaction to his use of the term "gook" being described as "mixed". I just want to make sure that it be known that they are still supportive of him despite/because of his comments. DHN (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an absolutely useless measure of encyclopedic quality. Template talk:Wikipedialang YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to discourage people from seeking to inflate their depths by means of stunts that detract from real improvement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think they come in 1 litre plastic bottles in Oz too, but I can't find a supporting reference. (However, there's no supporting reference for 1.1, 2 or 3 litres anyway!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (It's beyond me why they come in 1.1 litre containers at all, especially when they come in both 1 litre cartons and bottles, but, they do. I suspect logic doesn't have very much to do with it ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for softening your comment to Quentinwllcs (your second edit) – a bit of kindness never goes amiss :) -- Hebrides (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I turned the IP in. I suspect it's a multi-use IP, and in any case the admins don't seem to be watching AIV for the last couple of hours or so, so nothing may come of it, but whatever. I thought there was a sincere question in there somewhere, but it was largely baiting. Good riddance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me posting here, this is just a single comment, please don't cite anything to the Sun it is a very poor source, and I also think you have duplicated unnecessilary the fact that the people asked for a meeting and didn't get one. Anyhow, please not the sun it is rubbish as a cite. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case can you please give reference to Mr Djanogly's rebuttal statements? The articles provided are very biased and do not provide an impartial account. Furthermore, they contain a number of inaccuracies.

http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/search/article.php?id=747

http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/search/article.php?id=768

http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/search/article.php?id=769

This can provide a better balanced article than that solely provided by the Daily Telegraph, whom are not a neutral party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.135.105 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to a search engine, not any copyright works directly. My link was not more of a copyright violation than linking to a google search string. Your removal of the link was uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I did link to a page on mininova, not to a .torrent file. My link takes you to the page detailing the torrent information, NOT the .torrent file. Besides, a .torrent file isn't copyright either, it's just a text file with ip information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still think you're wrong but I don't want to argue. I'll not help people in the future by providing links. Happy editing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I've very tired so I haven't read your wall of text yet (I will tomorrow!) but I've agreed not to post the link so can we leave it at that please :) I was only trying to be helpful, I'm sorry I broke some policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment on ITN talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishg55 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've heard of LightCurrent a few times before around the Desks (even been accused of being LC!) but I'm not really familiar with them or their posting style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.133 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. Your continued input in the matter until a resolution is reached would be appreciated if you would like to provide it. Thanks, --69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you not mind weighing in on the John Paul II -- too much info for this article discussion, especially its subsection? I agree with Robpinion about the long summary, and feel that you are likely to agree about that as well due to what you stated in the Discussion of Wwallacee's second changes to article section, despite the summary Robpinion is complaining about seeming to partly be in 4672mtem's own words, but it is Robpinion's other edits I just moments ago disagreed with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Peru. Arafael (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both for your correction of Valence and your posting on my web page. Actually my mother tongues are English and Italian, but I haven't spoken much Italian for over 30 years. I'm living in francophone Switzerland, so I speak a lot of French. That caused the mistake. Valencia in French is Valence, and I subconciously used that instead of the correct English. Since there is also a Valence in France, it was important to correct the error and I appreciate your having done so.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT "the tail end of BLP" -- I regard BLP1e as the tail end of BLP. It seems to me to be an afterthought.

I do not believe that anyone's perception that an article about an individual only talked about "one event" merits the extreme remedy of deletion on sight without warning -- particularly when "one event" isn't defined anywhere, and the perception of what is "one event" is highly subjective.

A couple of years ago one wise guy made this point very effectively by arguing, tongue in cheek, that the article on then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair should be deleted as a violation of BLP1e. The wise-guy claimed the only event Blair was known for was his support of George W. Bush's war policy. The wise guy suggested that the wikipedia would be improved if the Blair article was deleted, and the only material worth covering in it -- his support for the Bush war policy, be pasted into George Bush's article. I don't think the wise-guy cited them, but there were a bunch of articles and editorials that referred to Blair as "George Bush's lap-dog" to back up that interpretation. Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the talk page? Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Balance.3F_or_not.3F My goal was to put the Storch/Mann relationship in perspective. I am worried that my phrasing is clumsy, but I don't see the timing of the earlier criticism as a problem, it's part of the point. This isn't an independent voice calling for recusal, but someone with a past contentious relationship. --SPhilbrickT 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "copyvio" is not applicable. these emails have not been copyrighted. Sukiari (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been interesting working with you to clean up what was considered to be the most widely contentious article in the world (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident). I was certainly expecting more folks than just you and me. I'm done with the work I've been itching to do, and going off line for a while. Keep up the good work, Nil! Madman (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TALK and standard practice on wikipedia, please do not add discussions the the beginning of talk pages and even worse, do not add them to the beginning of an existing discussion (i.e. at the beginning existing topic heading). I have removed your discussion here [9] and not bothered to add it back since it didn't seem to related much to improve the article which is the purpose of talk pages. I won't however remove it if you add it to a new discussion or the end of a relevant existing discussion Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The cited *guidelines* say nothing of the kind. They discuss that new Topics should be placed at the bottom of the page - not posts. The guidelines do say, however "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. Politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach." Since your action in deleting my post appears a willful and deliberate violation of this guideline I have replaced my comments at the top of the page. --DaleEastman (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You find time to lecture me but none to point out that I was acting honestly? Three times I was accused of falsifying a source, an accusation that was allowed to colour the edit-warring allegation. You knew this claim was untrue (and Chelydramat has since withdrawn the accusation; I'm pursuing Beetstra) but couldn't find a moment to point out it was unfounded?

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression states concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value violates NPOV.

This is relevant text from Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source [10]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

How could it be construed as contentious to merely include six words cut from the middle of a direct quote that was already in the article. Was it not relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value?Dduff442 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of boilerplate with which I'm contacting the folks most involved in the original discussion. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Hi, it's been nearly three years, but maybe you remember the fuss over the dab page Les Balsiger and the article Les Balsiger (activist). In a nutshell, to the best of my recollection, a college administrator with the same name as an anti-Catholic activist contacted Wikipedia after attempting to disambiguate himself from the activist. The administrator is a fine person, but as-of-yet non-notable.

In what was more-or-less an official Wikimedia Foundation action by User:BradPatrick, who was the foundation's legal counsel at the time, it was determined that a dab page should be created despite the fact that it didn't fit in with MOS:DABRL. Now a user insists that the Les Balsiger (activist) page be redirected to the Les Balsiger dab page. That is the current state of pages. I didn't agree with the initial decision that we needed a dab page, but I wish to uphold the decision made at the Afd. Should we reopen the Afd, or has the issue run its course?

Here are some links to the relevant history (not necessarily in chronological order): Talk:Les Balsiger (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173#Previously deleted Les Balsiger article reincarnated as a defamatory attack article -- on the wrong target?, and this short note regarding closing the Afd on the dab page.

Brad Patrick indicates that he's no longer to be contacted about Wikipedia legal matters, so I will be e-mailing this message to Mike Godwin via info-en at wikimedia dot org.

If the pages are kept in their current state, a history page merge may be in order and/or the talk pages need to be put in the correct places.

Let's discuss this at Talk:Les Balsiger (disambiguation) to keep it all in once place. Katr67 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civility. As I stated on the atricle's section on the notice page for BLP, let us simply reword the content to make it more neutral. Removing it altogether is not appropriate. by hajatvrc at 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point (which I did not express clearly) was simply that any experienced editor could have reworded the content in one quick edit to make it neutral and make sure the material was actually supported by the cited sources. This would have eliminated the problem of the POV material remaining on the article while a dispute was going on. If that had been done and there was further discontent, then a debate should have arisen. But because all people did was revert the edits and create a debate destined to be long and tedious, we are now stuck in that debate until people agree to reword the content and on what that reworded content is going to say. If I were to reword it now on my own it would get reverted, even if I were to reword it to something that would not have originally been contentious. by hajatvrc at 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to acknowledge that I was wrong to be so defensive and snippy in my response to your revert ("it's rich..." etc). This contributed to things getting out of hand and did precede the other issues we've gone over in such detail. I accept also that it's easy to overlook something written by a third party (e.g. Chelydramat's allegation) in the course of what was a drawn-out dispute. Dduff442 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice collection of links, way to do all the hard digging! Next time we can just link to your post instead of to all those other ones! Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said here -- including that the RD talk page isn't the place to resolve any of it. (And I was just about to say so there when you reverted yourself.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across some stuff that makes me think one way or the other this may become a non issue soon & also decided it best to avoid it becoming too much of a criticism of BWH thread so decided to let it be for now Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean "eligble" ("available for"), not "illegible" (cannot be read) here. Both are correct English, but only one makes sense to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, thanks! Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mail, I've added the offending url. --Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine.

A1DF67 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when you'll get this, perhaps someone else would have already fixed the item. But if not, while I agree the wording was confusing for the Cadbury item was confusing, your change reintroduced a problem someone had already pointed out in WP:Main Page/Errors and someone had modified the wording in an attempt to improve. I've proposed a new wording in the Errors pages, feel free to use your own but your current wording is IMHO definitely equally misleading Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this. I've changed the blurb on ITN as suggested on WP:ERRORS. Hope this works better. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I purposefully made a "royal mess" of Cocoa Krispies is completely unfounded. The "copy and paste move" was done only because, at that time, I was unaware of the WP:RM process. Indeed, Wikipedia acknowledges that this is not uncommon given that copying and pasting was the manner in which such moves were originally carried out. Not to mention that it is intuitive for many people -- why would someone who recognizes that a move can be effected by copying and pasting, but who is unaware of the existence of WP:RM, search for how to effect that move when they already know how to do so (albeit improperly by WP standards)?

Second, and again given my ignorance at the time of the WP:RM process, I did not make the move in a fit of pique after being told not to, as you imply. Seven months after the original botched redirect, I opened a discussion on the now-archived article talk page -- just as was done when the article name was first changed from Cocoa Krispies to Coco Pops. There were no objections, so I effected the move. Admittedly, I did so after only three days, but I note that the original change was effected on August 6, 2006, only three days after being noticed on WP:RM -- despite WP:RM providing for a seven-day minimum to reach a consensus.

Finally, as to the merits, the cereal is also known as "Choco Krispis" in many, many different countries. There was no mention of this when the four, count 'em, four Wikipedians who supported a change from "Cocoa Krispies" to "Coco Pops" reached their ostensible consensus on the basis that, because the cereal was known as "Coco Pops" in a number of countries outside of the U.S., the article should therefore have that title. Why not "Choco Krispis"? Because the countries in which it is known by that name are Spanish-speaking? Then we would have an anti-Hispanic bias, wouldn't we?

The sensible solution can be seen in the Frosted Flakes article. Like Cocoa Krispies, Frosted Flakes are known as "Frosties" in many if not all of the same countries in which Cocoa Krispies are known as "Coco Pops" -- and are known as "Zucaritas" in the same countries in which Cocoa Krispies are known as "Choco Krispis." Yet the article is not entitled "Frosties" for the reasons discussed on the article's talk page -- and those reasons apply with full force here. I would let it lie and let the administrators clean up real messes. This article is fine now. Jhw57 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is offensive and unnecessarily accusatory. You are, of course, free to draw whatever inferences you may from what I did, but that does not make them correct. Unless you are an omniscient, you are not qualified to make judgments on one's intent and level of familiarity with WP. I shall not waste my time further with the likes of you. Do what you feel you have to do, because apparently you have nothing better to do.Jhw57 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, firstly I take offense at you basically telling me to back off from supporting people who I feel are being mistreated. I'm a strong believer in second, third, fourth chances, especially on the internet. There is never a way to know for sure if people are trolls or not, why not assume good faith? It could always be an innocent person, and I'm not willing to accept them as collateral damage and I will always stand up for them. Even if they are trolls, assuming good faith and helping them anyway don't hurt, and can often be more effective in stopping them in the future than outright hamfisted "revert block ignore" mentality. Someone who originally started out as a troll might decide to stop based on a good experience; they certainly won't stop based on a bad one. And I know for a fact that back in the day many users were accused of being me, reverted and blocked when they were completely innocent. That's one of the main reasons I take such a strong view in defending people who are accused of trolled based on very little evidence (same ISP, same range etc etc means very little. Oh and lol at you "outing" me, I'm certainly not trying to conceal my past so don't act like I am.