"Yet how to pick the worthy ones when they were dead and gone? 'Twas Gryffindor who found the way, He whipped me off his head..." (Goblet of Fire: p.157, The Triwizard Tournament). As for the Hat being a relic, Dumbledore explains what a Founder's relic is in HBP - "objects owned by Gryffindor or Ravenclaw [or Hufflepuff or Slytherin]. Four objects from the four founders would, I am sure, have exerted a powerful pull over Voldemort's imagination." The Sorting Hat is, by its own admission, an 'object owned by Gryffindor', and is thus a relic - which led to many fans claiming it 'must' be the Horcrux, and Rowling categorically denying it (she may have said "yes it is a relic of Gryffindor" - I'd have to look the quote up.) Michael Sanders 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a mispelled word is given a redirect. See Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F for more information.Kewp (t) 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, a person might misspell a word inadvertently and shouldn't be directed to a page pointing out that they mispelled that word. And, as this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, the person is looking up information about Cartesian planes, they are not looking for a spelling lesson.Kewp (t) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my bad! Jackacon 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just a quick request: when warning vandals, please try to refrain from making potentially unkind comments - sometimes it just encourages them. Comments like this aren't really the best way to approach them, even if it is a long-time offender like that particular IP. WP:Templates has some standardized templates under 'User talk' that work better and provide useful links. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no restrictions on Tier 1 Capital that I know about. It is simply a measure of the "first line of defense" that a bank has in case its borrowers default. The risk-adjusted Tier 1 Capital Ratios are usually in the neighborhood of 8% ... a bank with such a ratio could have, for instance, a balance sheet like this:

Assets

• Loans to Customers : $100

Liabilities

• Deposits from Customers: $92
• Preferred Shares: $2
• Common Equity: $6

Note that this bank's Total Capital Ratio (which includes Tier 2 Capital) will be lower than most ... there are also rules and standards for the Total Capital Ratio which I have ignored. jiHymas@himivest.com 216.191.217.90 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting it. Why don't you answer one of them. I'd like someone to answer one. Chubbennaitor (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think I knew the answers for a few of them. I'll leave a message on your talk page when I have some time.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did very well but confused yourself with the answer to the last on. The results:

• correct
• wrong. He gives the basket to one of his sons.
• correct. Well done the trap is himself
• correct but you got there in the wrong way.

Do you like the picture of the wave. Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Damn - I should've seen that basket one.

4. What was the right way to get there?

Cool pic. Where is that?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for joining the WikiProject. We are just getting started but I think there are many casual investors out there that the latent demand for improved articles is tremendous. I'm glad you're on board.

Cheers,

Greg Comlish (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this project could be very useful if it kicks off. Unfortunately, I don't have much time at the moment for WP editing but I'm looking forward to getting involved later on.

It's quite sad that the internet doesn't generally have a comprehensive, usable, factual and up to date site that allows people who aren't necessarily financially-savvy to learn about this stuff.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Investopedia? It's fairly comprehensive. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have used it whenever WP fails me. My hope is that someday WP will have all the answers and Investopedia won't be needed. My main problem is that it's not usable to people who don't have a good general understanding of financial topics - which is where we come in. The adverts don't help either. . -- Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if it is Tara Reid's character's boyfriend's brother. I believe the character in question is talking on the phone to Tara Reid's character's boyfriend, and tells Tara Reid's character's boyfriend where the Bible (or Sex Bible?) is.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was his brother, I'm fairly certain. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the book was under a book shelf.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book was like a composition of a bunch of construction paper, looseleaf, etc. glued together or inserted in between random pages.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the book was in a library in the school, if memory serves. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clever calculation of six degrees to Kevin Bacon on the refdesk. Enjoyed it! Julia Rossi (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Julia. Glad you enjoyed it. It took me ages to get the Jim Carrey --> Jenifer Aniston link. And I had actually successfully resisted the urge to publicly portray my lack of a life by linking this page :). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, and now, acquirer of arcane obscure knowledge with great self-control!  : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:LarryMac.

Hi Zain please don't bite the redesk op/newbies by comparing them to worms iq. Please encourage their optimism in posting if you have it in you, best Julia Rossi (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After ec) Sorry, Julia - really didn't wanna offend you. There were a large number of questions coming through last night (from various accounts), all within a period of half an hour. I reponded quite curtly to most of them but I got a bit carried away with this one. Your concerns are, however, not without merit and and I have apologised. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly concerned for your own edit history's sake, Zain and hoping I was right with the little worm one, thanks for responding so well. I'm not always in the loop and looking here and at the developments at ref talk there's been a big game on with someone yanking our brains, so I fully understand the tension. Best with stopping the flood, Julia -- Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for trolling and I am willing to stop. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#April Trolls in May where I have outlined a compromise. Hot JJ (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That request is not very sensible. How do you expect people to take you seriously after everything you've done? Replacing all of the desks with pictures of Avril wasn't wise. PLEASE stop being disruptive and use your time/skills to improve this encyclopedia.

However, as long as you continue to make unresonable bargains and threats of further vanadalism, I will keep reporting your socks to AN/I (and yes, I know you have many). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Richard0612.

Moved to User talk:Antandrus.

Hi Zain, do you know much about how the rich evade taxes? There's a question you might like to put into here on the refdesk[1]. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter me, Julia! I have a pretty good understanding of financial markets, banking and insurance but not tax. Unfortunately, I'm not rich so I don't bother with avoiding taxes :). I'd've struggled to do half as well as you did on this one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's generous praise, Zain. I was aware you had expertise in what I see as an undivided mystery: High finance: the Country (that I'm not a member of), so I'll keep in mind your special areas and admire them from afar.  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zain - I think the trick to putting a category link is to preceded the word Catergory with a colon; thus [[:Category:Boats]], i.e. Category:Boats.

Thanks, Larry! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind the difference between "hi" and "hey". To be quite honest, I wouldn't mind if you had said "Hi there, you big stupid bastard". Really, I don't care either way what wording you use. Ziggy Sawdust 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here under the assumption that this is a different thread.

I was just a bit concerned that my tone may have come across the wrong way - on WP (or anywhere where you don't see/hear the person you're speaking to) it's very difficult (for me, at least) to make sure that the message you're sending carries the appropriate tone. In South Africa "hey" is a friendly greeting but I'm not sure whether this applies to other places where it may seem rude. Thanks for being cool about it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Jain puneet.

Hi. You're going to find that a lot of people on the Reference Desks really hate it when you just remove things like this. It's a little too rough on the editor whose contribution was removed. It's better to do what I did, which is to tell the editor how you feel about his contribution on his talk page and let him remove it himself. This way he learns, and people don't get shirty. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already left a note on his talk page regarding his sarcastic and IMHO bitey treatment of the newbies and he didn't remove his comment or apologise to the OP. In that case the OP responded defensively and it could have become ugly. Personally, I feel quite strongly about making fun of someone's poor language skills and WP shouldn't tolerate such poor manners. But if you or he re-inserts the comment I won't remove it again. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, you pin his arms, and I'll work him over. Kids these days gots no rispeck. I'll try to engage him on the subject if it happens again, but in the meantime I have to repeat my warning to you that you're summoning the shitstorm (not from me). --Milkbreath (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've noticed he's been banned. Looks like my ability to assume good faith has grown muscles in my brief time in Wikipedia. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with assuming good faith - I see it as a virtue (but apparently some people don't). I'm not sure he deserved to be blocked but I don't know the full history and getting into a debate with swarms of admins is the last thing I need right now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: There are already 21 references in the Bond insurance article which I linked, most specifically this one. I don't see any value in including any of them again in the CDS article. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and insert the relevant reference from bond insurance into the CDS article. If there's a particular guideline/policy advising against this then I'll remove it. Personally, I don't think it causes too much harm to have the one extra reference in there and it would look better if we ever applied for a FAC.

Regarding the actual content, I think that my edit summary didn't accurately explain why I was unhappy with your addition. I thought that "much longer" was unencyclopedic and I thought "been around" could have been better phrased. I see you took care of the important one - thanks. How about the following compromise:

...although other kinds of bond insurance products have been used since the 1970s ?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm OK with your suggested wording. About the reference, I don't think the time line of MBIA and Ambac is relevant in the CDS article. Actually, I'm not happy with my "1970s" comment either--this kind of financial instrument has been used since the middle ages, and in 1880 was already formalized by Surety bond issuers. The Surety Association of America has been regulating it in the US since 1908, but companies in London and The Netherlands have been engaging in this business since the early 1800s, possibly even earlier. I'd welcome your suggestion on how to provide a bit more historical perspective to the Credit default swap article. As it is right now, it sounds like the whole concept of Surety/Indemnity is something that came about in the last few decades, when in fact nothing can be farther from the truth. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I didn't know that it went so far back. I agree that the "History" section should provide more perspective on the origins of CDSs. Perhaps we should just try and find a ref ({{fact}} should suffice for now, though) for the Surety bonds' date and mention that instead of bond insurance. Something to the effect of:

...although similar [[Surety bonds|insurance products]] have been used since the late nineteenth century ^{[citation needed]}.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - do you know who wrote that Blythe Masters invented CDS? DerivMan (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That comment was added in this edit by user:Unvarnishedtruth. Are you unhappy with that comment? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems to be unsupported by references. It's generally accepted that JP Morgan "invented" CDS, and Blythe was probably involved but there are others who may claim the honour of having invented them. See this recent FT article.--DerivMan (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I actually found and added the one source that was there but after lookling at it just now I realised that the writer of that source got his info from the WP article! How's that for unreliable? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll have a go at the article when I have some time. You might also want to look at the credit market resilience sections in the recent CRMPG report. --DerivMan (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That looks great. I'll definitely have a closer look. The more refs the better the article. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zain, coming across sharp turn in the basketball/baseball wrangle, thought I'd give you this:

Ah, the Desks,  : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm *sip* ahhh! Hit the spot (plus it's cold here in Johannesburg). Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me we're both in the southern hemisphere! Enjoy, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd come across your edits with the reference desk in general, and its talk page. Initially, looking at a large portion being deleted, I thought that was an act of vandalism—I was going to rollback that. But, on closer inspection, I realized that you were attempting to archive that, which of course is appreciable.

I'm sending you this message as I'd like to point out that such massive edits (and even otherwise) should be accompanied by an edit summary. I believe you're an experienced user, so am not going into further details of it.

Bye. Take care and happy editing.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for writing. I always use edit summaries. See my contributions. In this case I said "archiving" in the edit summary. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back!

Oh yes, you are very right. May be I missed it because it was short. Sorry to bother you. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I've made tons of slip-ups since I started. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Cameron.

Thanks for re-arranging that sentence. I new my version wasn't too hot, but didn't think of how to do it better.Cretog8 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Yeah I prefer it when the crux of the issue is handled in the body of the sentence so that someone who doesn't really understand the material can learn it better. All the best! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff

Why, what happens?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Tango. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zain. Thanks for all your recent contributions to the Ref Desk. I have one suggestion for you. You started your last Math Desk post with "To the OP:". However, many OP's won't understand that abbreviation, so I suggest writing out "To the original poster:". The term "OP" is fine when discussing a post on the Ref Desk Talk Page, however. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - that's a good point. I've corrected it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions, sticking your neck out, being frank, responsive and above all being yourself. Kudos, man. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, dear Julia! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:68.148.164.166.

Moved to User talk:TenOfAllTrades.

Moved to User talk:87.102.86.73.

Thanks for the compliment, Zain, but with respect I think that says more about your powers of observation than about my perfection. I make LOTS of mistakes. Mind you, I take pride in getting it right first time, so I do check my work thoroughly before I post it, which usually means previewing it more than once, and with complex posts, maybe half a dozen times. But, like everyone else, I often see what I intended to write, not what I actually wrote. Until some time later when it glares out at me and I think "How the hell did I do that?". Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zain Ebrahim, for your pointy present. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to be aware of this personal attack on you, by User:-73hww. I have left a warning on the user's page that any more vandalism of any type will result in a permanent ban on the user. I've never run across you or the other user before: is this other person plagueing you, or is this the first time that s/he has done something against you? Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the warning; apparently the user was blocked permanently nearly an hour ago. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting it! My talk page is semiprotected so he decided to insult me elsewhere :) Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zain, just wanted to thank you for your diligence in spotting the troll pretty early and letting others know so they don't waste their time. That's good work. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cap'n! :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this "overfed" junk? Sorry, I'm missing something. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both those questions were asked by a sockpuppet of the Avril Lavigne troll. The overfed idea was Sluzzelin's IIRC. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 48#Wuzzup?. This has been going on for a while now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that your talk page has been semiprotected for the last week? I noticed because it stopped 87.102.86.73 from dropping a note to you as well as me when he move a post off the refdesk. Algebraist 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I left a note at 87's talk page and requested the semiprotection removed. It was being vandalised by the AT so an admin semiprotected it. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but now unprotected. However, I've left move protection there, assuming you had some problems with that in the past. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peter. Yes, I'd prefer for the move protection to remain. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know (in case it's a mistake) that the "shiny new sig" that you posted on the RD regs page links to your contribs and not to your user page. If this is what you intended then disregard this message. --hydnjo talk 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that's the point (since Zain's userpage is even emptier than mine...). Algebraist 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now don't you go all modest on us Mr. Emptypage! -hydnjo talk 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I was going through some of the other regulars' userpages and I felt kinda embarrassed (because mine sucks) so I decided to let my sig point to my contribs while I think of something interesting to put there. And Algebraist, I think your userpage is about 100 barnstars shy of describing your work here perfectly! :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm always open to a hundred barnstars. It might affect pageload times though. Algebraist 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just disappeared, availing myself of practically the only right we have in here. I left a few things undone, but nobody died, so I'm OK. I'm not sure I'm cut out for a collaborative effort like this. My procrastination, laziness and misanthropy seem to always surface in the long run. I expect to resume from time to time, though. There is much good here, good folks, intellectual peers. Just let me finish building my new super PC. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I should apologise for the curtness of my two initial responses to 'medical advice discussion'.

"The providers of these should be chastised, not the OP" - I recognise that it is unfortunate that the OP seems to be punished in these cases - especially in the case of trivial/good faith questions. That is why I left the original question on the science desk, albeit hidden. There is no intention on my part here to fault the OP.

Nonetheless I do think that all non-hypothetical questions of a medical nature with an identifiable human subject do, in general, represent a request for medical advice.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I ever ask a medical question, I'll be very certain to phrase it as hypothetically neutral as possible but many OPs believe that giving some context helps clarify what they are asking for. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and take each case at a time. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't doubt yourself Zain_Ebrahim, this molehill grew into a mountain because of my generosity. Some of the tricks pulled are unsettling, and to keep peace I'll just skip the intro, facts, and citations and give you the conclusion from this: that you should stick to your initial instincts on this matter. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last, were you the user who asked the original that I answered? Is that what OP stands for?

No, I wasn't the one who asked the question. I think it was user:Iiidonkeyiii. OP stands for "original poster". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Do you not have an archive page? I couldn't find an instance of you being awarded this!!! Da da! Here it is. Well deserved Fribbler (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks, Fribbler! But there are many others (such as yourself!) who do a LOT more work on the RDs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see your proof that Boyce is not Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect a reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that he's not Dawkins. But why would that give you the right the to vandalise User:RichardDawkins? The admins may not agree but we both know that you edited that userpage in bad faith. Please stop this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the reference desk is to educate users by answering questions with sensible answers that help the questioner. Deliberately misunderstanding the question and posting nonsense can be considered vandalism. I am certain that most questioners would not appreciate it if their questions were treated flippantly and responses consisted of nonsensical answers deliberately designed to confuse. Such responses do not encourage new questioners to use the service and indeed can have the effect of encouraging malicious users into also responding to genuine questions with false responses designed to deliberately confuse the questioner. This defeats the purpose of the reference desk. The contribution I removed does not help answer the question and only served to discourage anyone answering the question with a serious answer. As I am the person who asked the question I think I am in a reasonably good position in which to judge whether the response was helpful. I would appreciate it if you did not restore the comment again. If you want to be helpful research the answer to the question. If you don't want to be helpful please don't disrupt the page. Thank you. Jooler (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did it "discourage anyone answering the question"? It wasn't deliberately designed to confuse, it was designed to be funny. Did it offend anyone? Was it controversial enough to spark unnecessary debate? No. I'm sure you can imagine how quickly things would get out of hand if we allowed OPs to remove any responses that they thought were unhelpful. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is it wasn't helpful or even funny. If you want to continue the debate I've posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk Jooler (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I say it was funny. Again, I have to point out that we can't have a rule stating that OPs are allowed to remove responses simply because they feel it isn't helpful. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I feel it wasn't helpful. It plainly wasn't helpful. It was plainly nonsense. And nonsense in Wikipedia article is vandalism. Jooler (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk guidelines state "Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement." Jooler (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Rm indent) Okay I don't feel that strongly about this so I won't revert you again but I will defend my position here. If somebody posts in bad faith in an attempt to get attention or to start a debate then we should mercilessly remove. But removing this comment was imo inappropriate. If you have a problem with a user's post you should query on their talk page. Some comments:

• You still didn't explain how this comment got in the way of a useful answer despite asserting so again. If someone happens to know the answer to your question, they will write it out whether this comment is there or not. Your treatment of people who have tried to help you so far would be a muuuch bigger deterrent to prospective answerers.
• The reference desk is not a WP article and there is no way I agree that this is an example of vandalism as defined in WP:Vandalism. Nor is it nonsense as defined in Nonsense or WP:Nonsense.

You feel like you own that thread and so have the right to do as you will with it. You don't. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there and thanks for your mesage, i have a query regarding a page i produced that was deleted and im not sure how i communicate with the person that deemed it advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgah (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're welcome! :) I see you edited Channel U TV, Ballers and We Fly High. Which of these are you referring to? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see you asked the same question on the help desk at Wikipedia:Help desk#How do i communicate with an administrator for deleting my contribution. Looks like you got a useful response from User:Zzuzz who presumed you were referring to The Ballers Show and pointed to User:Number 57 as the deleting admin. Go to User talk:Number 57 where you can leave a message. If you don't get any luck with him/her, you should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal the deletion. Hope this helps. Happy editing! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i appreciate your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgah (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For braving death in our defense. Algebraist 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks man! Glad to be of service. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a show. If you haven't heard the saying, before, attacks of that nature usually mean you did something right. Keep up the good work. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that barnstar, you definately earned it. StaticGull  Talk  14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks guys. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the welcome message. Angie186 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Happy editing. And I see you signed your post - well done! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zain, Thanks for the welcome. I'd appreciate your help with an edit I've made; 100m world record progression. Someone had added a sub 9 second run by an athlete who doesn't appear on google- I'm pretty sure its 'vandalism' so deleted it but the layout of the page seems a little different as a result. Could you cast your eyes over it to check I haven't completely ballsed it up! Thanks Od6600 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Od. I had a look at your edits to World record progression 100 metres men and they seem fine to me. Here's the before and after. The table looks the same after your edit and that was certainly an inappropriate addition to the table so your edit was good. Hope this helps. Happy editing! Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind to produce descriptive edit summaries. Today, I would have appreciated to see why your reverted here. I am sure you've had a good reason, but the previous edit was done in good faith and I understood the rationale of this edit. So, I was really curios to know your revert motivation. Generally, when viewing your contribs, I find it remarkable that your summaries do not really facilitate comprehension with your fellow editors. Thanks. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the line immediately below the edited line in the example you cite? I find it hard to believe that the edit was made in good faith - it certainly was not an informed edit. I generally don't use edit summaries when reverting bad faith or extremely obviously wrong edits (but, if the latter, I usually point out that the edit was in good faith in the edit summary). If I feel the editor may be confused, I generally prefer to leave a note on their talk page. Can you perhaps point to an example of another edit summary that was not comprehensible? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my last 500 mainspace edits. I think my edit summaries are fairly descriptive. The reason I don't fully explain the removal when reverting erroneous edits is that I usually want to get rid of the error as quickly as possible so I just say "rv GF edit" but I'll try to be more descriptive in these instances from now on. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I viewed your contribs like this, which of course does not look descriptive in the major parts. It would be the same for me. I should have looked more carefully at the list I consulted to find that your main space edit summaries are in general very OK. It's unfortunate, that this one revert edit that I did not understand brought me on this track, because I was disappointed not to find a supportive summary for this one. I have learned one thing, sorry that you have been the object for this lesson.

With respect to the specific edit: Don't you think Security market line is the better term? Tomeasy _{T C} 11:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise at all! To be honest, I've never come across Security Characteristic Line before but Security Market Line is already there two sections down at Modern portfolio theory#Securities market line. And the SML I'm familiar with doesn't incorporate the time dimension which the SCL apparently does. So I don't think SML is better for that particular section but I'm not sure if SCL is since whoever put it in didn't source it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have left his request to be blocked when you removed his trolling section from the Help Desk. -- kainaw™ 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You're absolutely right - I should have left it. Hopefully he leaves now but if he doesn't, I'm sure an admin will notice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but I finally replied to your post. Sorry! --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm curious as to why you're pointing an admin to a basic policy page, what you think you're informing me about, or what the heck you're referring to in the first place. Rebecca (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to notice the link in my post? Try that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I misread the link yesterday. Sorry to bite your head off! Rebecca (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - no probs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my page. I wonder if it is a coincidence that a certain user started an RFC on me and as soon as it failed, I keep getting anon vandalism on my user page. -- kainaw™ 14:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool man. I actually had a look at that RFC and I guess the WP community (like all other communities) is bound to have a few [insert violation of WP:NPA here]. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did a very good job of stating "It is my impression..." - but that has been completely lost. I have since been told in Wikipedia and email that the chess people are very sensitive and very vindictive. I figure the worst they can do is get me banned from Wikipedia. Then I'll just have to spend more time on my PhD thesis and graduate sooner. Oh darn! -- kainaw™ 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - I can't say I haven't thought that a forced break might be good for me too! Seriously though, it seems kinda unacceptable for WP to piss off (or even lose) a good contributor just to appease sensitive chess people. Sometimes this place really sucks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:ukexpat.

It will be interesting to see your proof that Dawkins is not Boyce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread above User talk:Zain Ebrahim111# Interesting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zain - I've made a new lede to this article and put an "under construction" tag on it. Please work to help improve the lede instead of reverting to the old (and hopeless) original. thanks Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zain - I made some deletions. The new text was highly biased and inaccurate and reflects only the ill-informed views of someone who watched the 60 Minutes Hatchet-job on Sunday. It may be fair to reflect some of the criticims of the CDS market but they should be included as such and not as purported "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerivMan (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - signing: --DerivMan (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I agree with your edits but I think you should note your removal at Talk:Credit default swap. Just go there and create a new section. There are several other editors currently involved in that article who may wish to comment on your edit. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I saw that the erroneous statement that Blythe Masters invented CDS is back. We discussed it a while back and you deleted it as it referenced and article tha referenced the Wiki article.--DerivMan (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that bloody article keeps coming up, doesn't it? I replied at Talk:Credit default swap#History of these instruments. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:DOR (HK).

Hi are you aware of [2]? There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced potentially libellous material in edit summaries Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks - I wasn't aware. I replied on that page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 09:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you a mod?Accdude92 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure what a mod is. Are you referring to a forum moderator? If so, we call them administrators here on wikipedia and no, I'm not an admin. Btw, you'll notice I moved this thread to the bottom. At the top of all talk pages is tab saying "new section". Use that to start a new thread - it's easier because it moves the thread to the bottom and creates a section header. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for helping me! Your real nice!Accdude92 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92[reply]

You're very welcome. Now let's write an encyclopedia! :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I just wish there was a place to add people as buddies, or as I call it fellow wikipedians! :)Accdude92 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92 Are you still here? And why do we need to sigh our posts?Accdude92 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92[reply]

Oops, I guess I just missed this last night. Anyway, since so many people may contribute to a conversation, it's good to sign your posts so we know who said what. Otherwise we have to go through the page's history to figure it out. Happy editing! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How often are you on wikipedia?Accdude92 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92[reply]

I usually log in at least once a day and read the Reference desks unless I'm away. If I plan to leave for more than a week then I usually put up a message on this page indicating that I'm on a break. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would make a good global moderator!Accdude92 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)accdude92[reply]

Aww thanks man. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question, while being linked to Wikipedia, would have been better answered, by someone with more knowledge of the subject, on either the computing or language reference desks. I was trying to help the user - the help desk can tell them how to input a table, or clear up Wikipedia policy, but the reference desks are better at answering questions about that sort of thing. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Two comments:

1. First, the template. Basically, a user asked a question on how to use WP and you replied stating that they should go to the RD where "any question in the universe" is tolerated except questions on how to use WP (which is what the HD is for). My point that this is likely to confuse a newbie is still valid and I maintain that using the template was terribly inappropriate.
2. Regarding whether the RD is better staffed than the HD with respect to foreign character usage is neither here nor there. I firmly believe that this question is more than likely to be suitably answered at the HD.

The simple fact is that the HD is for questions about using WP. Please refrain from using "go-to-the-Refdesk" templates to questions that belong on the help desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for your offering such helpful and direct advice, which is well taken. The user involved has also encouraged me along those lines (on her User talk page and mine), so I feel we're in good company. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Deborah. I consider myself something of an "expert" in getting the wrong message when I read someone's post so I'm used to posting requests for clarification on others' talk pages. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding me is fine. -- SGBailey (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you add me without permission.... not really :) thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:Pfly.

I too am outraged that you would add me without my permission! :)

Thanks man. I have seen and appreciated your contributions on and off the desk.NByz (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise, NByz. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]