User talk:Nsk92/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nsk92. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala

Please see my comments there, particularly this one: reliable sources do exist for the basic facts, at the very least.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1"

Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the article, but I still feel the same way about it. There is not enough there to establish academic notability and the notability for political activism, while passable, is not sufficiently significant to overcome BLP concerns and to override the subject's request for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Another helicopter

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For doing the utmost, even on a wikibreak, to save notable mathematicians like Brian Bowditch from deletion. VG ☎ 16:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Zwiebel

Hi and welcome back, Nsk92! Thanks for your last message (which I was no longer able to find, thus am opening a new section here and hope it's the right place), giving me your consent (thank you) to remove the notability tag on my article on Alfred Zwiebel (which I have done). I have since revised the article further, adding several new references to published sources. I now have citations for 2 books, 3 magazine articles, 7 newspaper articles, and 2 published booklets. I HOPE that will now be sufficient to remove the "requires further references" tag -- is it? I will be grateful to hear your determination.

Looking for your user page, I noticed the list of articles you created and was interested in several of them (we have some interests in common). I have so far read the two on A. Khvostenko and R. Grigorchuk. As I was reading, I took the liberty of making a few very minor corrections (largely grammatical and spelling typos) and also added a number of internal links. I hope you don't mind. Regards,Neidhart (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the previous thread, it is available in the archived portion of my talk page, by following "Archive 3" link at the top of this page. Here is a direct link: User talk:Nsk92/Archive 3#Alfred Zwiebel. Thanks for your hard work on impriving the Alfred Zwiebel article, it is certainly in much better shape now and the notability concerns have been largely addressed. Again, as a matter of personal opinion, I don't think it is time yet to remove the {{refimprove}} tag. The main remaining issue is that all the data of biographical nature, dates of birth and death, all the biographical data in the "Early life" and "Later Years and Death" sections, remains unsourced. If you can't find a published source (such as an obituary) for this info, perhaps as an intermediate option you could do the following. You could create an off-wiki (not on Wikipedia) personal webpage dedicated to your father (where you would identify yourself as his son), provide his biographical details and maybe his photo there and add a link to such a site to the "External links" section in the WP article. While this is not a great option, WP:V does, kind of, allow self-published sources to be used for noncontroversial basic biographical info and, in my opinion, the WP article about him does need some kind of a clearly identified source for the basic bio facts given there. Regarding the Grigorchuk and Khvostenko articles, sure, you (and everybody else!) are allowed, and in fact encouraged, to edit them and you certainly don't need my permission to do so (see WP:OWN and WP:GFDL). Nsk92 (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for another careful and detailed response. I guess I will have to go with the external, personal website option (will have to create one, which will take some time), as I don't think I can find published sources for most of the dates (though I might be able to find something for one or two facts). There was no obituary for my father (I am his daughter, actually, not his son), because the family decided not to insert one. What exactly needs to be proven -- is it mainly the DATES of these biographical events? If so, could photographs of actual documents (such as a certificate of birth, marriage or naturalization) be included as "blind images," or whatever the correct Wiki term is -- the kind of image that doesn't appear in the article, but can be included in the Notes with a clickable link? (And would it be a violation of copyright or any other kind of law to photograph a U.S. government document, such as an Army discharge or Certificate of Naturalization?) Re date of death, would a link to the Social Security online death index suffice? Or does the CAUSE of death need to be documented as well?

Just a question -- can't some of these dates and events that are really immaterial to his work as an artist -- such as date of marriage, army service, or even death -- be taken on faith, if they are not controversial and were written by someone who knows from personal knowledge that they are correct? This is important to me to know not only because of my father, but also because I had planned to edit and expand articles on a number of people I knew well who already have Wikipedia articles written about them. Some of the articles have information that I know to be wrong -- I can correct it, but it will be from personal knowledge; in many cases, I will not have a published reference to cite (ditto for expanded information that I could include). Is it therefore better to just leave the incorrect information and leave the articles as is? I don't really think this would serve Wikipedia well... (but I can't create websites for all of them). Is there a hard-and-fast Wikipedia policy on this? Again, thanks for your interest, guidance, and patience!Neidhart (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the son/daughter mistake. Regarding your other questions: if you do set up an external website, I do not think it is necessary to provide actual copies of documents such as death/birth/marriage/naturalization certificates etc there (it is up to you whether or not to do that; and I must confess that I don't know anything about the legal issues related to posting copies of such documents). I think it would basically be sufficient for you to state there that you are Alfred Zwiebel's daughter and to provide the relevant biographical details regarding his life there and maybe a photograph or two of him, plus maybe a few more pictures of his work, and to include an link to that page (as an external link or maybe even as a reference) in the Wikipedia article about him. The point of WP:V policy is that all the factual information in a WP article must be clearly attributable and attributed to an external published source (where the WP readers of the article can look it up if they want to). It is much preferred that this external source be a reliable source as defined by WP:V and WP:RS. But, in noncontroversial cases references to self-published sources may be acceptable and that was the essence of my suggestion to you. I should make it clear that I am not questioning the truth of any info in the article (I trust that everything you say there is factually correct). But it is important for general reasons for WP articles to comply with WP:V requirements since WP:V is one of the tenets of Wikipedia and is probably its most important policy. To quote from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You have once again given me very helpful and useful guidance (thanks especially for the links to WP:V and RS, which I will peruse), and I am most appreciative. I will now set to work on looking for more references (and creating the website). Thanks so much again for pushing (and helping) me to greatly improve my article.Neidhart (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Sorry to keep turning up like a bad penny, and I really don't mean to be contentious, but as I was reading up on the WP guidelines to which you referred me, I came across something that really leads me to believe I have now fulfilled Wikipedia's citation requirements. Here's why: While in WP:V, I found a link (WP:CITE) to guidelines on how to cite properly. In that section, there is also a list of "When to cite sources," which reads: When adding material that is challenged or likely to be; When quoting someone; When adding material to the biography of a living person (my father is no longer living; also, I am not adding the material to his bio, but creating the bio); When checking content added by others; and When uploading an image. None of these categories apply to the remaining biographical info in my article. I also checked the WP guidelines on writing biographies (I believe you can link there through WP:BIO, if I recall correctly -- sorry, I don't want to try it out again, though, or everything I've written here will be erased), and there it says that dates of birth and death should be included when known, but it doesn't say that they have to be supported by a published reference. Based on all of this, I really feel that I should be able to remove the "unsourced/requires additional references" tag at this point -- do you not agree? (That wouldn't mean, however, that I won't add more references if I find them, which may well happen. I have many more newspaper clippings about my father than the ones I included, and several refer to those bio points; the problem is that my parents usually just cut out the text of an article but neglected to note the name and/or date of the paper it came from -- they didn't pay attention to such things! I still may find some that have the necessary data, however.) Once again, I look forward to your determination. Regards,Neidhart (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First, a procedural remark. Things like WP:CITE and WP:BIO are WP guidelines while WP:V is a WP policy. WP policies always take priority over guidelines in cases of doubt or when there is a disgreement between them. On a more substantive matter, I think that basic factual biographical information about a person (living or not), such as dates of birth/death, details regarding education, marriage, children, employment, a serious medical condition, etc, qualifies as material that can be challenged or is likely to be challenged, and always needs to be sourced (and the fact that we are having this conversation is sort of a proof of that). In my observations this has always been the de facto standard interpretation of WP:V on Wikipedia. There are additional safeguards for biographies of living persons, specified in WP:BLP, especially regarding potentially negative information, but that does not mean that basic factual biographical information in biographical information in biographiies of non-living persons does not require a published reference (in my opinion it always does). If you disagree with my opinion regarding this (which you are perfectly entitled to do), you can request extra input at the wp:third opinion page. If you do that, please give a link there to this thread in my talk page, since our discussion so far has taken place here rather than at the article's talk page. Also, as an alternative suggestion, I could remove the "refimprove tag" from the top of the article and add "citation needed" tags at the actual places in the article where I think that references are still needed. I personally think that a single "refimprove" tag at the top is less distracting for the reader but "citation needed"{{cn}} tags would work for me as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, OK. No, I don't think it's worth asking for a third opinion at this point. I will look for additional citations and if/when I find them, will get back to you. And I do agree with you that it would be more distracting to have individual "citation needed" tags, so better to leave as is.Neidhart (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian Bowditch

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		for saving Brian Bowditch from a fate worse than death - being stricken from wikipedia! Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! But really, I deserve at most one of these barnstars for participation in the AfD on the Bowditch article, and I was already given one by VG above. Nevertheless, thank you, I appreciate it. I have expanded the article fairly substantially yesterday and submitted a DYK hook nomination mentioning Bowditch's solution of the Angel problem. We'll see what happens. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the other barnstar. But, two can't hurt and I'm amazed at what you've done with an article that I thought should be deleted a couple of days ago. Very impressive! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Khvostenko

I looked up the history log and it turns out that it was you who nominated for DYK back in July an article I created, Alexei Khvostenko. I barely knew then what WP:DYK was, and it was quite a nice surprise when a DYK notification note appeared at my talk page. Anyway, although rather belatedly, but thank you! Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Nsk92. Your nice new article deserves the spotlight on MainPage. I look forward to seeing more of your good work on DYK. Happy editing! :) --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Brian Bowditch

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brian Bowditch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of graph

Pls check out my entry in the discussion page and lemme know what you think.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)." We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to you at great length, both here and at your talk page, having a list of "certified experts" with special powers is a very misguided idea that cannot be made to work on Wikipedia, at least not as any kind of a formal way. I say this as one of the people who is in fact a bona fide expert, with a PhD and a tenured academic position. You cannot force people to disclose their real identities for the sake of attaining official "expert" status on Wikipedia. Even if a few people agree to do that (as is already the case), subject matter experts operate as equals with the rest of the Wikipedia community and that community will never accept having its rights curtailed in relation to, say, editing or deleting articles on any given subject (such as science). In practice, an informal and purely advisory version of WP:EXPERTADVICE already exists and it functions very well. There are lots of subject-specific WP:wikiprojects, where experts tend to gravitate. E.g. there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics that a great many people interested in math, including active research mathematicians, watchlist. If and when there is an actual math question in relation to a Wikipedia article requiring expert opinion, people can and do post it to the talk page of this Wikiproject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. This is also a way to attract attention of the experts to a particular wikipedia article where there is a content dispute or where the article is listed for an AfD. in practice, this informal system works quite well. There are similar wikiprojects in other subject matter areas. Of course, when someone claims to be an expert in this situation, their claim has to be taken on faith (and it usually is taken on faith); people also check the contribution history of a particular editor to see if the editor has in fact extensively contributed to or has created Wikipedia articles on a particular subject. Anything beyond an informal system like that (which already exists) is never going to work on Wikipedia and trying to pursue it would be a waste of time. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Not to be rude, but I really do not wish to continue this discussion with you further. I have spent quite a bit of time patiently explaining things to you, and that is as much time as I am willing to spend on this. To put it more bluntly: you need to first spend some time on Wikipedia as an editor and contributor, get to know the place, understand how it works and get an informed opinion, before plunging into various policy-making proposals. If you do that, and in say, three months time, you have got some well-informed ideas and suggestions, we can talk again then. Nsk92 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Deletion of your articles

Dear Nsk92 - Thanks for the very useful and detailed info disclosing rigorous Wikipedia guidelines. On another hand (and believe me, I am not adopting the "sour grapes" approach) it strikes me so profoundly that the execution of those so strict guidelines could by chance be performed by ignorant and sometimes very arrogant participants - that is why I am suggesting to consider the additional (at least optionally available) review procedures (see my "Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles" posting). Apovolot (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the system is not perfect but, by and large, it works reasonably well. I am a professional mathematician myself and sometimes I do get frustrated for the reasons you describe. But I have been editing on Wikipedia for over a year and in my experience the burden of proof regarding notability in science-related articles (although not for articles about scientists) is fairly low, in fact lower than I would have liked. It is really not very much to ask that there be several published scientific articles discussing a particular scientific concept/notion/result/etc. If there are problems that have manifested themselves, they are usually of the opposite kind: sometimes articles on pseudo-science and various fringe scientific theories get kept in cases where, in my opinion, they ought to be deleted. In practice, most (or at least, many) people who participate in a science-related AfD and who are not experts or scientists themselves, have a lower notability threshhold than do the scientists who happen to be involved in an AfD. Also, the process does have some safeguards. There is a deletion review where it is possible to appeal and challenge the outcome of an AfD. Also, people do not simply vote (keep/delete) in an AfD but are expected to offer some justification for their opinion. If these justifications are abstent, not based in policy or are clearly faulty, they will be given less weight or disregarded by the closing admin. There are additional mechanisms for ensuring that participants in any given AfD are not completely random, which increase the likelihood of some subject matter experts participating in an AfD. Thus there are deletion sorting lists, that one can "subscribe" to by watchlisting relevant pages. For example, the AfD for your article was included in the deletion sorting list Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. The reality is that there is no way to organize this process differently without fundamentally altering the model of what Wikipedia is. As I said, the great majority of WP users (myself included) edit anonymously, for privacy reasons, and thus it is not possible to verify their qualifications and credentials. There are other models, based on using credentialed experts, such as those used by Citizendium and Scholarpedia. However, both of these are less successful enterprises than is Wikipedia (and, as a matter of fact, in terms of notability requirements, I believe that their de factor standards are much tougher than those used on Wikipedia). Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal offense, but in my "value system" anonymity in science is cowardice, cover for irresponsibility or an appearance of disrespect to the activity performed in disguise. This is my general opinion and let me stress again, it has nothing to do with you personally or in that matter with anybody else in particular. Kind Regards, Apovolot (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about anonymity in science but anonymity of editors on Wikipedia. As I said, Wikipedia relies on published material in scientific peer reviewed journals and books, which is, of course, not anonymous. Editing on Wikipedia, on any subject, is a different matter. Here privacy and anonymity of Wikipedia editors is a key core value and a bedrock principle of the entire enterprise. If you are not happy with this principle, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Incodentally, you are quite mistaken on the issue of anonymity in science as well. As a practicing scientist I can tell you that, while scientific publications themselves are, of course, not anonymous, anonymity plays a key and important aspect in the scientific enterprise. Thus peer review of scientific publications is conducted anonymously and the identities of the referees are not revealed to the people whose articles are being considered for publication. Similarly, when grant applications and tenure cases are reviewed, the identities of people providing expert evaluations of the grant proposals and of the tenure cases are not revealed to the people whose grants/promotions are being evaluated. In many ways, Wikipedia's system is more public than this process since here people engage with each other in the discussion directly, something that does not happen between, say, an author of a paper and the referee of that paper. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every practice, conducted in science is a virtue ... In my opinion, as I stated above, anonymity in science (as anywhere else in human affairs - unless the anonymity is required to shield the political dissident from the severe prosecution) is cowardice, cover for irresponsibility or an appearance of disrespect to the activity performed in disguise. I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered by you and others to be a "good thing". There is obviously a choice given for everyone either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym. But again life gives to the individual ability to exercise its own choice - so its a judgment call for each thinking individual. Openness is my core moral value, which I am entitled to have. Of course you are respectfully entitled to have the opposite opinion on this and as well on every other subject I brought in this discussion. Hopefully my communication with you doesn't appear as my attempt to mentor you. (I would like to assume that your communication with me does reciprocate in that sense). Apovolot (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf's continued antics

Hi, Gandalf went on the offensive by reverting my edit (twice) at uniform continuity based on a math error, please comment. Katzmik (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am going to stay out of this one. I am not particularly interested in the underlying topic and do not have strong opinions either way there. There is a discussion at the talk page where both sides (you and Plclark) seem to raise some reasonable points. Some of that discussion seems a bit esoteric and semantic to me (the part about the meaning of "local" where I think Plclark is being overly literal). I do think, however, that Plclark raises a valid WP:UNDUE point. If the nonstandard analysis version is to be mentioned in the article, it should probably not be in the lead section but somewhere further down in the article where generalizations of the classic notion of absolute continuity are discussed. I suggest that you post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics inviting further input. You can also try a WP:Dispute resolution such as an RfC. However, please be temperate in your actions in this dispute. The history log for the uniform continuity article is beginning to look like a prelude to an edit war which certainly needs to be avoided. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The UNDUE issue is a misunderstanding; see my comment at talk page. Katzmik (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Plclark's comment on local vs global, it is not an issue of semantics. He misunderstood the non-standard definition of uniform continuity, which superficially looks like it depends on two variables. In fact, it only depends on one, as the later part of the section makes clear. His edit was based on his misunderstanding. Katzmik (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take it to the talk page. Guest9999 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal made (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Relation to the general notability guideline). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your addition at WP:V

I have commented at WT:V explaining my revert, as you asked. The main issue is that while you are adding language at VP:V to make the rules more restrictive, the folks at WP:NOR are discussing language to take things in exactly the opposite direction. This is going to cause a conflict between two of our core policies. unless there is some cross discussion and coordination. I have left a note at both WT:V and WT:NOR explaining the potential conflict. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Dehn function, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_October_31, where you can improve it if you see fit. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dehn function

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dehn function, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I have posted the answers to the questions. I had them prepared, however I was unfortunate enough to have issues with my wireless internet at exactly the wrong time. Accept my apologies on the delay. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Action of 11 November 2008

Dear Nsk92

Even though we disagree as to whether the article should be deleted, I hope we can work together to try to resolve any issues that arise with it.BlueVine (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, sure, it is just an AfD. There will be a discussion, other users will chime in and the article will be either kept or deleted depending on what consensus transpires. I am certainly not going to take it personally whatever the outcome, and I hope you won't either. I hope you realize that an AfD nomination is nothing personal, and I do appreciate your contributions to the Wikipedia and your work on this particular article as an editor, even if I think that it should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Im curious as to why you placed the AfD on the article, i can see no listed reason on the page itself, and you did not list a reason when you notified me. The article is notable because it is the first lethal naval battle that british forces have been involved in since the korean war. There are hundreds of battles less notable than this one that have pages on wikipedia, so i truley am quite curious as to why you nominated it for deletionXavierGreen (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On the AfD template at the Action of 11 November 2008 page itself there is a sentence which says:"Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page". You need to click on the blue link and it takes you to the AfD discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 11 November 2008. You can express your opinion regarding keeping/deleting the article there. My explanation for the reasons for deleting this article is also given there. That is how the AfD process works. You can read more about it in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Incidentally, the AfD notification message that I left at your talk page also contains a direct link to the AfD discussion page, where it says: "If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 11 November 2008." Nsk92 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Nsk92, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatalities RfA

Thanks for fixing that... I didn't even see help me's !vote... He must have saved his edit at the same time I made mine because it didn't give me an error conflict, and I didn't delete it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:69.105.29.127, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors such as this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly know about this. However, in this case the editor in question was in the middle of a vandalism spree. I felt that the final warning should stay on the talk page for a little while in case there was immediate further vandalism, so that other editors would know not to leave further warnings but to take it directly to AIV instead (I had seen a few cases before where a valdalising editor erased the final warning, kept vandalising and got more warnings). As it happens, in this case the IP did continue to vandalize even after the final warning was erased. I certainly would not undo other users' edits at their own talk pages under ordinary circumstances. But this situation was an exception. Nsk92 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaucho "formula"

I could tell you were being sarcastic, of course, but I was afraid that anyone who could write that the formula "has been verified by my calculus professor" would be impervious to sarcasm and might even think you were a supporter. I think the professor concerned must be Professor Calculus from Tintin. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply (geometry stub template)

Dear Nsk92,

The connected sum has several applications in the theory of fibre bundles. OK, perhaps the definition of the connected sum is topological. But what is the purpose of the connected sum? The connected sum is 'geometrical' because it has heaps of applications in differential geometry. Topology Expert (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The question about the "purpose" of a definition is essentially meaningless. But some of the main uses of this notion occur in low-dimensional topology for constructing new (topological) manifolds out of existing ones. E.g. in 3-manifold topology one of the main notions is that of an irreducible 3-manifold, based on connected sums over spheres. There is also a version of a connected sum over tori that leads to the fundamentally important notion of a JSJ decomposition. These constructions are purely topological and their main purpose, if you will, is to break a topological manifold into simpler pieces that are easier to study. Moreover, the very definition of a connected sum is purely topological. For example, in the case of two Riemannian manifolds there is no natural notion of a connected sum as a Riemannian manifold. To say that the notion of connected sum is geometric because it has applications in geometry is nonsensical. So do lots of other purely topological notions, such as fundamental groups, covering spaces, spectral sequences, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I had also replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. If you wish to continue this discussion, please respond there. Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I have replied on the BN. I will talk to Richard and see if he reconsiders. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

David Eppstein notability

Nsk92, it's apparent from your recent editing that you defend David Eppstein article from all those who think it is not notable, sometimes even with harsh words. This is a noble job, but instead of fighting against those who claim the article is not notable, I think what should be done is to make clear in the article *why* Eppstein is notable, which is something that is *completely lacking* in the article, especially in the lead. If someone does not state objectively *in the article* why the article is notable, it will probably continue to be a target of non-notability claims, and you'll have to go on working hard to defend it, -- and this will probably go on until some time in (hopefully far) future when you and everyone who knows Eppstein are not editors anymore, and then the article may end-up being finally deleted. Renato (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already added some info to the article regarding his journal editorships, which is one of the notability indicators in WP:PROF. This article has been the target of frequent trolling and harassment since the subject is a Wikipedia administrator, User:David Eppstein. The article has been through an AfD recently and has been speedily kept. The last "notability" edit I reverted had "Fake article" it its edit summary, which was completely inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Terence Rudolph

Hi! As I just explained in the AFD, I think your search on WebOfScience might have missed a lot of publications, as he seems to publish as Terry Rudolph, rather than Terence Rudolph. Do you mind taking another look to see if you still think this should be a delete? Thanks, Scog (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching this, I modified my !vote and added extra comments in the AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical Problem

Hey there, I would like to divert your attention to one article "Shahid Masood", this article is not showing some of the sections which are present in the editing tab but not shown in the normal preview of the article. Plz have a look at this article and help correct it if you can. Regards.BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 08:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that it has been fixed already. The problem was with a malformed reference that was missing a closing </ref> and causing the text that came after this reference not to be shown. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind looking good - here comes the beer

Have an unyielding beer on me.

Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.

This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *^YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing tag

I have removed the {{closing}} tag that you placed at this MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apovolot after it had been there for more than four hours. It appeared that you were off-line. Sorry if I made a mistake and overstepped my bounds. Also, you may want to look-up the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales #Wikipedia User pages policies vs FREE SPEECH protected by First Amendment to the US Constitution that seems related to this MfD. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope I'm still here, just thinking about what I was writing and doing other things, there is no deadline, but you're right the tag does say you can remove it if nothing happens for a while so it's all good. The discussion is now closed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} There is a technical problem with listing an item at WP:DRV that I don't know how to fix. The entry is for the page User:Apovolot, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. The original DRV template was filled out incorrectly by Apovolot when he listed this item at DRV. Later User:Eluchil404 fixed it[1] (or so it seemed) and the item now appears correctly in the December 3 log page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. However, for some reason, this entry still does not show up in the Dec 3 list on the main DRV page, WP:DRV, in the list of active discussions (the only Dec 3 item that showing there is July 29 in rail transport). This must be some sort of an after-effect of the the fact that the original template was filled out incorrectly. I looked at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3 source file but I can't makes heads or tails as to what exactly is causing the problem now or how to fix it. Could someone knowledgeable please take a look and fix this problem? Thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before. Sometimes it takes a while to fix itself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I hope you are right and it will fix itself in a while. Maybe it is some sort of a cache issue.... Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jean-claude perez

Maybe it is better to restore the last version edited by Perez himself and then send it to MfD? If the content is deleted after an MfD, one could then speedy attempted re-creations or maybe even protect the page... Nsk92 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish, it would be great if you could take care of this, I don't speak english well enough. Thank you. Akeron (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In praise of excellent work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In appreciation of your successful efforts in improving the content and character of Wikipedia. Keep up the excellent work! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure -- I am hugely impressed with your input. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Karen Vogtmann

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karen Vogtmann, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

National Revival of Poland

You might like to comment here Verbal chat 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just did. I also left an AN/I notice on his talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

[2] That was rather daft of me... thank you for fixing that up. :) —97198 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, it was a minor point. Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "very good well-rounded candidate" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratualtions on passing your RFA and good luck with your adminship! Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Stallings

Thanks for your excellent work on John Stallings. The contributions I made to Orbifold were directly related to his article "triangle of groups", so I was happy to be able to wikilink them in to the paragraph you wrote on it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your comment at the admin noticeboard

My very last comment was most important though.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you meant in your last comment; could you please explain? More importantly, I would prefer that you (and other editors) didn't keep bringing 'my age' up in discussions since it is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And from now on, I am going to follow your edits (not a crime as admins have been doing this). Let's see who makes the most mistakes...

Topology Expert (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If at all I find a mistake I will undo your edit but I won't undo correct edits. So what's the problem there?

Topology Expert (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to be editing math articles lately. But when you do I will know...p

Topology Epxpert (talk) 13:0p9, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert, can you please stop this right away. Nsk92, I will talk to TE. Could I ask you to consider not responding to these comments or to those on the AN. Thanks, Martin 13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Nsk92 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My keyboard doe not ork ('double u' make my comp. log out, and you can gue the other key that doe not ork (the number 11 (in roman numeral) doe not ork either). Pleae help (I am deperate..). Topology Expert (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not really much of an expert on computer things so I am not the right person to ask. If you are using an MS-Windows computer (either a PC or a laptop), then often simply rebooting it solves the problem, so you can try that. If it does not help, there may be a more serious problem, like a virus or a hardware issue. Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou anyay butp thi problem ha been there for a eek. I ould appreciate it if you could ak help at the ref dek in computer for me.

Top. epert (another instance here the key doe not ork)

Oh and ith regard to immerion, I ill eplain hen my keyboard ork (baically, it follo from fact that the identity i an immerion).

Top. EPERT

I left a message at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing regarding your keyboard problem, hopefully someone there will be able to suggest something. Regarding immersions, you are completely wrong. The fact that there is no immersion (topological or smooth) from a sphere, or any other closed surface, to the plane is a simple exercise and follows almost immediately from the invariance of domain theorem. I gave a complete proof of it at Talk:Immersion (mathematics), it is just a few lines. There is no "identity map" from the sphere to the plane. The obvious way to map a sphere to the plane is the vertical projection to the x-y-plane from the standard 2-sphere

x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}=1

that send a point (x,y,z) to (x,y). This map is not locally injective at the equator and its derivative is not injective at the equator. This example shows the nature of the problem. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't type a meagge but of coure I did not ay that the projection from the phere to plane i the identity! I ill ePLAIN later (my reaoning).

Top. EPERT

You should really read the proof at Talk:Immersion (mathematics) first. As I said, it is a basic exercise in applying the invariance of domain theorem. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK rules

Hey Nsk92, thanks for your comments about the DYK rules. I've left a suggestion for a possible rewording at the discussion; I would appreciate your input on it, since you have a better intuition than just about everyone else there about what wording will be clear to new contributors.

Also, as a Wikipedian who often goes on breaks (for traveling, visiting people, etc.) and still finds himself logging in nonstop to make sure things haven't fallen apart without him, I will say to you, from one Wikipedian to another: don't forget to get off WP for a few hours and enjoy your break! :) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, sure, I have replied there. You suggested wording looks good to me. Regarding wikibreaks, you are quite right, of course. I am taking an early morning flight tomorrow and was just about to log-off. Cheers, Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs, 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Covering space

Although I have retired, I could not help but notice your changes to covering space. Most of them were good of course, but I am a bit worried about your edit summaries. Words such as 'peacock language' are unnecessary and should be avoided in edit summaries (not that I wrote some of that stuff) but you will have to admit that fundamental group is a concept very closely related to covering maps. In particular, many properties of covering spaces are related to the fundamental group of the base space (and even in fibre bundle theory, one can use properties of a fibre bundle to calculate the homotopy groups of the base space). And the lede is supposed to be 'imprecise'. You don't have to use an edit summary 'remove clumsy language' when this was intentional. I intended to give a brief explanation of how one can calculate the fundamental group of a space using its universal cover so that you don't need to see so many links (if you notice, I wrote 'other conditions must also be imposed on the group action'). Therefore, I am adding this back.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And your 'correction' in the lede is grammatically incorrect (and in fact, still 'clumsy language' according to your definition of 'clumsy language'). Topology Expert (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes your statement is mathematically correct but most readers want to know how covering maps are related to the fundamental group. If you really want the mathematically precise statement (I also like mathematical precision), add it to a section further down the article. Give my statement (which is still mathematically correct but not specific) which people are more likely to understand, instead. Topology Expert (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, aren't you supposed to be on a Wikibreak (I am supposed to retire but perhaps I should leave retirement till next week)? :)

Topology Expert (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement given in the lede now is both clearly stated and mathematically correct. I don't see that any further changes or additions or additions regarding this point are needed now. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My statement was also mathematically correct. My original statement was also much clearer (Q. How to calculate the fundamental group of a space using a covering map? A. Use group actions on the total space of a universal covering). The idea is that people want to get something out of the lede that they can understand. You know and I know how exactly one can calculate the fundamental group but the general population does not (that is why they read the article). They want a rough idea that does not involve going through so many links. That is exactly what my statement gives them. Anyway, I contacted Martin about this so let us see what he says. Topology Expert (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your statement is still somewhat mathematically precise because:

'A group acts discretely'. Is there such a thing as a 'discrete' action? A more precise statement would be to say that the group acting in question is discrete.
Since you are worried about being specific, you could change 'free action' to 'even action'. 'Even action' is a weaker and necessary condition.

Topology Expert (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Discrete action" is a commonly used synonym for a properly discontinuous action. I replaced it by the latter for additional clarification. If you feel strongly that your original sentence (which in my opinion is awkwardly worded and does not really clarify anything at the informal level) should be restored, you can take it to wikiproject math and ask for another opinion there. Nsk92 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. First of all, after looking at the article I think that what I call 'even action' is what you call 'discrete action'. I will wait for Martin to respond before I take it to WikiProject mathematics (no-one would bother to respond there anyway). Topology Expert (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term "even action" before, but the terms "properly discontinuous" and "discrete" are fairly commonly used in topology and there is in fact an article about properly discontinuous actions that can be wikilinked here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One more point: you are giving a more general statement (namely the one in the lede) which is of course correct. However, it is not easily understandable by someone who has no background on the theory. Think about this: if you were first learning covering space theory, would you understand terms such as 'deck transformations' or 'discrete action' or even 'orbit space' (most people first learn this term when introduced to covering spaces)? Why not something readily understandable and interesting. I mean, wouldn't it be exciting to hear that you could use actions to calculate the fundamental group of a topological space (especially to a group theory student)? Topology Expert (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with saying something that is easy to understand and interesting in the lede. The problem is that, IMO, your sentence was none of these; it was rather confusingly and cryptically worded and I don't think it illuminated things for non-experts. In this case one can give a short, clear and precise mathematical statement which is both more informative and mathematically correct. Nsk92 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But my statement was mathematically correct. I wrote that one can use the action of a discrete group on the total space of a universal covering map in-order-to calculate the fundamental group of the base space. What's wrong with that? You can use the action but I just did not say what particular action to use (and what particular group to use but of course this is the group of deck transformations). By saying 'homeomorphisms act' is false. The homeomorphisms have to have a specific property, i.e be deck transformations. Your statement is 'false' for the same reason that my statement is 'false'. Topology Expert (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if you are not happy, take it to wikiproject math and solicit additional opinions there. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite our argument, I must say that you have done good work on that article! I wanted to put something on conjugacy classes but you've done that instead so thanks. Topology Expert (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aim for GA

What about aiming to get this article to GA? I can pitch in and we can ask others too at WPM. Topology Expert (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It is an interesting thought but I am kind of skeptical about this. Articles on general math topics usually require a great deal of work to bring them to good shape, because they are typically fairly chaotic due to many different people having edited different parts of the article at different times with little coordination. This is one of the main reasons why I usually tend to avoid getting heavily involved in editing such articles (actually not just in math but on high-traffic general culture topics as well). Moreover, technical math articles are not particularly well suited for the GA/FA process. Most people who are typically involved in the GA/FA review process usually know too little about technical math subjects to offer substantive comments beyond general style and oftentimes what they do recommend is mathematically undesirable. On the other hand, if there is a significant but relevant mathematical bit that is missing from the article, they are not likely to notice this. Recent experience with bringing Group (mathematics) to the FA status (which was ultimately successful) illustrates these problems well. As a topic, covering space is just technical enough to already be a problem in this regard. Something easier and more general like metric space or topological space has a better chance for GA/FA, but even there quite a bit of work is required. I don't think I am sufficiently motivated to work on these kinds of projects seriously. As a matter of personal preference, I am more interested in creating new content from scratch on the topics related to my current research (in geometric group theory and geometric topology) and I have a fairly long to-do list there.... Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos, my well-spoken friend

Hey, your latest comments in the ongoing RfA were simply smashing -- I truly enjoyed reading them. I love a spirited discussion where intelligent people can put forth their idea in clear and cogent language, and your input is pure tonic. I hope all is well in your sphere of influence! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I did not enjoy making these comments and generally do not enjoy opposing in RFAs. In fact, I should stop commenting in this RfA and de-watch it, bad karma -:) Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

!voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth

Hi there. I saw that you oppose voted Lustiger Seth at his RfA and cited NOTNOW. While you are technically free to oppose on any criteria you want, WP:NOTNOW is clear that it can only be applied in cases where the RfA is sure to fail, which this one is not. I request of you to please change your criteria or indent your vote, please. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think this one is sure to fail, in spite of a number of supports, once people come to their senses. I think WP:NOTNOW is an appropriate rationale here. Just a note: do not indent my vote. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had no plans to :) I just was not sure if you had read the entire RfA before !voting, which it is now clear that you have. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Stifle said here that he could either be unblocked if he retracted the threats, or if the case is finally determined. BF showed me via email that there never was a case in the first place. He has decided to not sue Wikipedia (or anyone for that matter), and that's that. Therefore it is unnecessary to ask him to retract anything as the case (which did not exist in the first place) has been essentially determined. He even said to me in the email, "I had no intention of causing damage to Wikipedia, since despite its many shortcomings, Wikipedia does a very valuable service to the humanity as a whole." Since both Stifle and David agreed with me I don't think it's an issue anymore. Khoi khoi 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that LTs that were publicly made need to be explicitly retracted for an unblock to occur. Has he stated somewhere that he "decided to not sue Wikipedia (or anyone for that matter)"? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on WP:NLT that says he has to specifically retract it on Wikipedia. He told me very clearly via email that he's not going to sue Wikipedia or anyone else. I showed portions of this email to both Stifle and David, both of whom are admins. I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you concerned that he could be lying? Khoi khoi 00:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but I did want to understand where he said that he does not intend to pursue any legal actions. I would have preferred that it happened on his talk page, but I suppose an e-mail to an admin is OK too. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)